AN 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH 


SACERDOTAL  CELIBACY 


CHRISTIAN   CHURCH 


BY 


HENKY   C.  LEA. 


Ob  yct%  Qzou  isrri  Ktvav  Wi  T*  Trap*  tpvriv. 

Athenagor^e  pro  Ckristianis  Legatio. 


f  L  i  b  i 


UN  J  V  KISS  ! 


<     \ 


PHILADELPHIA: 

J.    B.    LIPPINCOTT    &    CO 

1867. 


IV  PREFACE. 

Dunkers  and  Shakers,  are  likewise  excluded  from  the  plan  of 
the  volume.  These  limitations  occasion  me  less  regret  since 
the  appearance  of  M.  de  Montalembert's  "  Monks  of  the  West" 
and  Mr.  W.  Hepworth  Dixon's  "New  America,"  in  which 
the  student  will  probably  find  all  that  he  may  require  on 
these  subjects. 

Besides  the  controversial  importance  of  the  questions  con- 
nected with  Christian  asceticism,  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  a 
brief  history  like  the  present  might  perhaps  possess  interest 
for  the  general  reader,  not  only  on  account  of  the  influence 
which  ecclesiastical  celibacy  has  exerted,  directly  and  in- 
directly, on  the  progress  of  civilization,  but  also  from  the 
occasional  glimpse  into  the  interior  life  of  past  ages  afforded 
in  reviewing  this  portion  of  the  discipline  of  the  church. 
The  more  ambitious  historian,  in  detailing  the  intrigues  of 
the  court  and  the  vicissitudes  of  the  field,  must  of  neces- 
sity neglect  the  minuter  incidents  which  illustrate  the 
habits,  the  morals,  and  the  modes  of  thought  of  bygone 
generations.  From  such  materials  a  monograph  like  this 
is  constructed,  and  it  may  not  be  unworthy  the  attention 
of  those  who  deem  that  the  life  of  nations  does  not  con- 
sist exclusively  of  political  revolutions  and  military  achieve- 
ments. 

Philadelphia,  May,  1867. 


CONTENTS 


Influence  of  the  church  on  modern  civilization 
Effect  of  celibacy  in  moulding  its  destiny 


PAGE 

17 
19 


150—250 
c.  300 


I— THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH. 

Influences  tending  to  asceticism 
Examples  of  ascetic  celibacy  . 
Scriptural  authority  on  the  subject 
Marriage  of  the  apostles 
Nicholas  the  Deacon — Xicolites 
Testimony  of  the  early  fathers 
The  apostolic  constitutions  and  canons 
Medieval  opinions  on  the  subject     . 


21 

22 
25 
25 
26 

27 
30 
32 


277 


c.  300 

305 
314 


II.— ASCETICISM. 

Early  ascetic  tendencies — Ascetic  heresies 
Second  marriages  condemned 
Montanist  doctrines  applied  to  the  clergy 
Ascetic  excesses — Origen 
Irregularities  of  asceticism — Agapetse    . 
Influence  of  Xeo-Platonism 
Manes — Causes  of  the  spread  of  Manicheism 
Ascetic  rivalry  with  heretics    . 
Extravagant  admiration  of  virginity 
Resistance  to  Manicheism  in  the  apostolic  con- 
stitutions and  canons    .... 
First  injunction  of  clerical  celibac}7  in  Spain 
Disregarded  in  the  East  .... 


34 
35 
37 
38 
39 
41 
42 
43 
45 

46 

47 
48 


VI  CONTENTS. 

Ill— THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICLEA. 

A.  D.  PAGE 

Decentralization   of  the  Primitive  Church — 

Centralization  under  Constantine         .         .  50 

325               First  Council  of  Nicsea 51 

The  third  canon — its  signification   .         .         .51 

The  story  of  Paphnutius          ....  54 

325 — 350     Married  priests  not  as  yet  interfered  with       .  56 

IV.— LEGISLATION. 

348 — 400     Enforcement  of  voluntary  vows  attempted     .  58 

Causes  stimulating  the  growth  of  monachism  59 

364               Marriage  with  nuns  prohibited  by  Jovian        .  60 

362              Reactionary  tendencies — Council  of  Gangra  .  61 
370               Sacerdotal  irregularities — Celibacy  regarded 

as  a  remedy 63 

384  First   adoption   of   sacerdotal    celibacy — the 

S3oiod  of  Rome 65 

385  Decretal  of  Siricius '66 

386  Siricius  recommends  celibacy  to  the  African 

church 67 

Absence  of  authority  for  celibacy   .         .         .68 


V.— ENFORCEMENT  OF  CELIBACY. 

Resistance  to  enforced  asceticism 

389  Bonosus   

390  Jovinian  ..... 
404               Yigilantius        .         . 

Organized  resistance  at  an  end 
390 — 419     Celibacy  adopted  by  the  African  church 
401  Compromise  of  the  question  by  the  Cis- Alpine 

clergy 

441  Settlement  proposed  by  the  first  Council  of 

Orange  

456  Non-enforcement  of  the  rule  by  St.  Patrick 

401 — 417     Resistance  in  Calabria     .... 

Popular  assistance  in  enforcing  celibacy 

Celibacy  irrevocably  adopted  . 

Its  effect  on  ecclesiastical  morality 


69 
70 
71 
73 

76 

76 

79 


79 
80 
80 

81 
82 
82 


CONTENTS 


Vll 


443 — 590     Efforts  to  purify  the  priesthood 
430               General  demoralization  of  society  - 
433  Sixtus  III 


-Salvianus 


PAGE 

84 
85 
87 


381 

400 

430 

528—548 

680 

900 


VI.— THE  EASTERN  CHURCH. 

Divergence  between  the  East  and  the  West 
Compulsory  celibacy  unknown  in  the  East 
Council  of  Constantinople — Antony  of  Ephe 

sus — Synesius 

First  enforcement  of  celibacy  in  Thessaly 
Celibacy  not  obligatory   .... 
Legislation  of  Justinian  .... 
The  Quinisext  in  Trullo — Discipline  unchanged 
Final  legislation  of  Leo  the  Philosopher — un 

important  changes        .... 
The  Nestorians — clerical  marriage  permitted 
The  Abyssinian  church    .... 


89 

90 
91 
92 
92 
94 

96 

97 

98 


TIL— MONACHISM. 

Apostolic  order  of  widows       ....     100 
Devotees  of  the  Primitive  church — no  vows 

irrevocable 101 

250—285     Paul  the  Thebsean  and  St.  Antony  .         .     102 

350 — 400     Increase  of  monachism 103 

Early  systems — vows  not  irrevocable      .         .103 

Greater  strictness  required  of  female  devotees     106 

c.  400  Marriages  of  nuns  still  valid   ....     107 

450 — 458     Conflicting  legislation 108 

Strictness   of  the  Eastern   church — Political 
necessity  of  controlling  monachism     .         .109 
451  Discipline  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon    .         .     110 

390 — 456     Monks  confined  to  their  convents    .         .         .     Ill 
532 — 545     Legislation  of  Justinian,  rendering  monastic 

vows  irrevocable Ill 

Disorders  of  Western  monachism    .         .         .113 
528  St.  Benedict  of  Nursia — vows  not  irrevocable 

under  his  rule        .     ' 114 

Rule  of  St.  Caesarius  of  Aries  .        .        .116 


Vlll 


CONTENTS 


A.  D. 

590—604 


Gregory  I.  enforces  the  inviolability  of  vows 
Continued  irregularities  of  monachism   . 


PAGE 

117 
118 


567 

589- 
557- 


-711 

-580 


590—604 


VIIL— THE  BARBARIANS. 

The  Church  and  the  Barbarians 
The  Merovingian  bishops 
Disorders  in  the  Frankish  priesthood 
The  Spanish  Arians 
Neglect  of  discipline  in  Spain 
State  of  discipline  in  Italy 
Dilapidation  of  ecclesiastical  property 
Reforms  of  Gregory  the  Great 


742- 
742- 

755 


-755 
■744 


840—912 

874 
866 

893 


IX.— THE  CARLOVINGIANS. 

Demoralization  of  the  YII.  and  VIIL  centuries 
Reorganizing  efforts  of  the  Carlovingians 

St.  Boniface 

Reformatory  synods         .... 
Resistance  of  the  married  clergy     . 
Pepin-le-Bref  undertakes  the  reform 
Sacerdotal  celibacy  re-established    . 
Reforms  of  Charlemagne  and  Louis-le-Debon 

naire — Their  inefficiency 
Increasing    demoralization    under   the   later 

Carlovingians 

Legal  procedures  prescribed  by  Hincmar 
Indifference  of  the  Papacy  to  the  enforcement 

of  the  canons 

Sacerdotal  marriage  resumed 


938 


X.— THE  TENTH  CENTURY. 

Barbarism  of  the  tenth  century — Debasement 
of  the  papacy       ..... 

Opposition  to  sacerdotal  marriage  . 

Tendency  to  hereditary  benefices — Dilapida 
tion  of  church  property        ... 

Leo  VII.  prohibits  sacerdotal  marriage  . 


CONTENTS 


IX 


A.    D. 

It  nevertheless  becomes  general 
952     Defended  by  St.  Ulric  of  Augsburg 
925—967     Unsuccessfully  resisted  by  Ratherius  of 
na  and  Atto  of  Vercelli 
Opposing  influences  among  prelates 
Relaxation  of  the  canons 

942 1054     Three  Archbishops  of  Rouen  . 

Indifference  of  Sylvester  II.    . 
Celibacy  practically  obsolete   . 


Yero 


PAGE 

153 
153 

154 
157 
159 
160 
162 
162 


XI— SAXOX  EXGLAXD. 

Corruption  of  the  ancient  British  church 
Asceticism  of  the  Irish  and  Scottish  churches 
591  Celibacy  introduced  among  the  Saxons  by  St. 

Augustine 

Disorders  in  the  Saxon  nunneries  . 
747,      787     Councils  of  Clyff  and  Calchuth 

815  Case  of  St.  Swithin 

Neglect  of  discipline  in  the  ninth  and  tenth 

centuries 

964  St.  Dunstan  undertakes  a  reformation     . 

Utter  demoralization  of  the  clergy 
St.  Ethelwold  of  Winchester  and  St.  Oswald 

of  Worcester 

964—974       Energy  of  Edgar  the  Pacific   .... 
975  Reaction  after  the  death  of  Edgar 

Ineffectual  miracles 

1006  Failure  of  Dunstan's  reforms 

1009  Council  of  Enham— Sacerdotal  polygamy      . 

1032  Legislation  of  Cnut  > 

Sacerdotal  marriage  established   among  the 

secular  clergy 

1041 — 1065     Edward  the  Confessor 


164 

165 

166 
168 
169 
170 

170 
171 
172 

173 
174 

176 
176 
177 

178 
179 

180 
181 


XII— PETER  DAMIAXI. 

1022  Council  of  Pavia— Efforts  to  restore  discipline     184 

1031  Council  of  Bourges 185 

Clerical  marriage  and  profligacy     .         .         .186 


X  *  CONTENTS. 

A.    D.  PAGE 

Revival  of  asceticism— San  Giovanni  Gualberto  190 
1046                 Henry  III.  undertakes  the  reformation  of  the 

church — Clement  II 191 

St.  Peter  Damiani 193 

1049                Leo  IX 195 

Damiani's  Liber  Gomorrhianus        .         .        .196 
Reformatory    efforts   of   Leo  —  Councils    of 

Rheims  and  Mainz 19? 

1051 — 1053     Spasmodic   attempts   to   reform  the  Italian 

clergy 198 

Failure  of  the  Reformation     ....  200 

1058  The  Papacy  independent — Damiani  and  Hilde- 

hrand 201 

1059  Appeal  to  the  laity  for  assistance   .        .        .  203 
Nature  of  medieval  concubinage     .         .         .  204 

1059  Council   of   Melfi— Deposition  of  Bishop  of 

Trani 205 

1060  Damiani  endeavors  to  reform  the  prelates       .  206 
The  persecuted  clergy  organize  resistance       .  208 

1061  Schismatic  election  of  Cadalus        .         .         .  209 
He  is  supported  by  the  married  clergy    .        .210 

1063                 Renewed  efforts  of  Alexander  II.  and  Damiani  211 

Their  failure 212 


XIII.— MILAN. 

Milan  the  centre  of  Manicheism       .         .         .216 
1045  Election  of  an  archbishop — Four  disappointed 

competitors 218 

Marriage  universal  among  Milanese  clergy     .  219 
Landolfo  and  Arialdo  excite  the  people  against 
the  ecclesiastics    .         .         .         .         .         .221 

1056                 Popular  tumults — Plunder  of  the  clergy         .  222 

1058  The  Synod  of  Fontaneto  defends  the  married 

priests 222 

A  furious  civil  war  results       ....  223 

1059  Damiani  obtains  the  submission  of  the  clergy  223 
1061                 Milan  embraces  the  party  of  Cadalus      .         .  225 

Death   of  Landolfo  —  Erlembaldo   takes  his 

place 226 


CONTENTS.  XI 


PAGE 


1062                Alexander  commissions  Erlembaldo  to  carry- 
on  the  strife — His  success    ....  226 

1066  Excommunication    of    Archbishop    Guido  — 

Martyrdom  of  Arialdo          ....  227 

106T                 Compromise  and  temporary  truce   .         .         .  228 

1069  Guido  forced  to  resign — War  between  Gote- 

frido  and  Azzo  for  the  succession         .         .  229 

1075  Death  of  Erlembaldo — Tedaldo  archbishop  in 

spite  of  Gregory  VII 230 

Influence  of  celibacy  on  the  struggle       .         .  230 

1093—1095     Triumph  of  sacerdotalism       .         .         .         .231 

Similar  troubles  throughout  Tuscany      .         .  232 

XIV.— HILDEBRAND. 

1073  Election  of  Gregory  VII.— His  character        .     234 
Necessity  of  celibacy  to  his  scheme  of  theo- 
cratic supremacy 235 

Legends  illustrative  of  his  mission  .         .     237 

1074  Synod    of    Rome  —  Repetition    of    previous 

canons 238 

Attempts  to  enforce  them  throughout  Europe 

— Resistance  of  the  clergy  ....  239 

Three  bishops — Otho  of  Constance — Altmann 

of  Passau — Siegfrid  of  Mainz      .         .         .  240 

1074                 Gregory  appeals  to  the  laity   ....  244 

Resultant  persecution  of  the  clerg}r        .         .  246 

Miracles  attesting  the  holiness  of  celibacy      .  248 

107  7                 Violent  resistance  of  the  married  clergy         .  249 

Political  complications 249 

1085  Papalists    and    Imperialists    both    condemn 

sacerdotal  marriage 250 

XV.— CENTRAL  EUROPE. 

Depression  of  the  Catholic  party — Sacerdotal 

marriage  connived  at 254 

1089  Urban  II.  renews  the  persecution    .         .         .     255 

1094  Contumacy  of  the  German  priesthood     .         .256 

1105  Deposition  of  Henry  IV. — Germany  restored 

to  Catholic  unity 257 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

A.  D.  PAGE 

1118 — 1131  Sacerdotal  marriage  nevertheless  common  .  258 
1092                 First  introduction  of  celibacy  in  Hungary — 

Synod  of  Zabolcs 261 

1095—1114     Laws  of  Coloman    ....'..  262 

1185 — 1257     Gradual  enforcement  of  the  canons  in  Hungary  263 

1191—1279     Introduction  of  celibacy  in  Poland          .         .  264 

1213—1248  Disregard  of  the  canons  in  Sweden  .  .  264 
1117—1266     Their  enforcement  in  Denmark         .         .         .265 

1219—1271     Their  neglect  in  Friesland       ....  266 

XVI— FRANCE. 

1056—1064     Efforts  to  introduce  sacerdotal  celibacy  .         .  268 
1074—1078     Contumacy  of  the  clergy          ....  269 
1080                 William  the  Conqueror  intervenes — First  allu- 
sion to  licenses  to  sin 270 

Gregory  VII.  connives  at  spoliation  by  the 

laity 271 

Successful  resistance  of  the  Norman  and  Bre- 
ton clergy 272 

1076                 Troubles  in  Flanders 273 

1091                 Usurpations  of  Count  Robert  the  Frisian       .  274 

1094  Appeal  to  the  temporal  power  in  Flanders  .  275 
Confusion  caused  by  the  attempted  reform     .  276 

1095  Council  of  Clermont — Its  canons  disregarded  277 
Condition  of  the  monastic  establishments  .  278 
Hereditary  transmission  of  benefices  .  .279 
Miracles  invoked  in  aid  of  the  reform      .         .  280 

1119                 Calixtus  II.  commences  a  new  reform      .         .  281 

Resistance  of  the  Norman  priesthood     .         .  282 
Abelard   and   Heloise  —  Standard   of  morals 

erected  by  the  church 283 

XVII.— NORMAN  ENGLAND. 

1066                 Canons  not  enforced  by  William  I.          .         .  285 

1076  First  effort  made  by  the  Council  of  Winchester  286 
1102                 St.  Anselm  undertakes  the  reform — Council  of 

London 287 

Resistance   of  the   priests  —  Failure   of  the 

movement 289 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 

PAGE 


290 


29? 


1104                 Henry  I.  uses  the  reform  as  a  financial  expe- 
dient      

1108  He  enforces  outward  obedience        .         .         .291 

1126            '     Stubborn  contumacy  of  the  priesthood   .         .  293 

1129                 Henry  again  speculates  on  clerical  immorality  294 

1138 11T1     Disorders  of  the  English  church      .         .         .295 

Consorts  of  priests  no  longer  considered  as 
wives    

1208                 King  John  discovers  their  financial  value        .  29? 

Venality  of  the  ecclesiastical  officials     .        .  298 

"Focarire"  still  universal         ....  299 

1215  Indignation  of  the  clergy  at  the  reforms  of 

Innocent  III 300 

123?                 Cardinal  Otto  and  the  Council  of  London      .  301 

Popular  poems  concerning  the  reform     .         .  302 

1250— 12G8     Gradual   extinction   of  clerical    marriage  in 

England 304 

Robert  Grosseteste,  Bishop  of  Lincoln   .         .  306 

Fruitless  legislation  against  concubinage         .  30? 

12th-15th  C.  Sacerdotal  marriage  in  Wales  .         .         .308 

XYIIL— IRELAND  AND  SCOTLAND. 

Degradation  of  the  Irish  church  prior  to  the 

twelfth  century 309 

1130—1149     Reforms  of  St.  Malachi— Influence  of  Rome  .     310 

Monastic  character  of  the  reformed  church     .     311 

1186—1320     Condition  of  the  church  in  the  English  Pale  .     312 

Degeneration  of  the  Scottish  Culdees     .         .313 

1124—1153     David  I.  reforms  the  church  and  re-establishes 

celibacy 314 

1225—1268     Immorality  of  the  Scottish  clergy  .         .         .315 

XIX— SPAIN. 

11th  Cent.      Independent  barbarism  of  the  Spanish  church 

— Marriage  universal 316 

1068—1080  Encroachments  of  Rome  —  Sacerdotal  mar- 
riage condemned  .         .         .         •         •         .31? 

1101—1129     Reforms  of  Diego  Gelmirez— Marriage  not 

interfered  with 319 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

A.  D.  PAGE 

1260                 Legislation  of  Alphonso  the  Wise  —  Concu- 
binage universal 323 

1323  Concubinage  organized  as  a  safeguard  by  the 

laity .324 

Corruption  of  the  church  in  the  fourteenth 
century 324 


XX— GENERAL  LEGISLATION. 

1123  First  Council  of  Lateran — Marriage  dissolved 

by  Holy  Orders 326 

1130                 Not  as  yet  enforced 328 

1139  Sacerdotal  marriage  formally  declared  void 

by  the  Second  Council  of  Lateran       .         .  328 
1148                 Confirmed  by  the  Council  of  Rheims — Denied 

by  Gratian 329 

1150                 The  new  doctrine  receives  no  obedience  .         .  330 

1158 — 1181     Alexander  III.  insists  upon  it  331 
But  makes  exceptions   in  favor  of  immoral 

ecclesiastics 333 

Conflict  of  rules  and  exceptions       .         .         .  335 
1206—1255     Case  of  Bossaert  d'Avesnes     .         .         .         .336 

Alexander  III.  proposes   to   restore   clerical 

marriage        .......  337 

1181—1198     Efforts  of  the  popes  to  enforce  the  canons      .  338 
1215                 Fourth  Council  of  Lateran — Triumph  of  Sa- 
cerdotalism   340 


XXL— RESULTS. 

Recognition  of  the  obligation  of  celibacy        .  342 

Dangers  attendant  upon  it       ...         .  343 

Increase  of  immorality 344 

13th-15th  C.  Fruitless  attempts  to  restrain  corruption        .  345 

1231                 Recognition  of  children  of  ecclesiastics  .         .  346 

1225 — 1342     Efforts  to  restrict  hereditary  transmission      .  347 

1317                 Recognition  of  concubinage    ....  350 

Successful  resistance  to  reform        .         .         .  351 

Corrupting  influence  of  clerical  immorality     .  353 

Concubinage  recommended  as  a  lesser  evil      .  355 


CONTENTS.  XV 

A    D.  TAGE 

12th-15th  C.  Morals  of  the  papal  court        .        .        .         .356 
Influence  of  the  celibacy  of  the  secular  priest- 
hood      360 

Influence  of  monachism 361 

XXIL— THE  MILITARY  ORDERS. 

1120  Knights  of  St.  John  vowed  to  celibacy  .        .365 

1128  Knights  of  the  Temple  vowed  to  celibacy       .     365 

1175  Knights  of  St.  James  of  the  Sword  allowed 

to  marry 366 

1441  Marriage  permitted  to  the  Order  of  Calatrava     367 

1496  And  to  the  Orders  of  Avis  and  Jesus  Christ  .     368 

1167  Order  of  St.  Michael  allowed  to  marry  once  .     368 

Reforms  attempted  in  the  Order  of  St.  John  .     369 

The  Teutonic  Knights      .        .        .        .        .369 

XXIIL— THE  HERESIES. 

Asceticism  of  medieval  Manicheism        .        .370 
Difficulty  of  combating  it         .         .         .         .371 
1146  Antisacerdotalism — The   Petrobrusians   and 

Henricians    .         .         .         .         .         .         .372 

1148  Eon  de  l'Etoile 373 

c.  1160  TheWaldenses 374 

1294  Antisacerdotalism  of  the  Franciscans — The 

Fraticelli 376 

1377  Wickliffe -379 

1394  The  Lollards  denounce  clerical  marriage         .     381 

1415 — 1438     The  Hussites — They  maintain  ascetic  celibacy     382 
1411—1414     Brethren  of  the  Cross— Men  of  Intelligence  .     384 

XXIV.— THE  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY. 

1418                 The  Council  of  Constance  attempts  no  refor- 
mation             386 

1422                Martin  Y.  undertakes  it 387 

Undiminished  corruption         ....  388 

1435                 The  Council  of  Bale  attempts  a  reform  .         .  389 
Impotence  of  the  Basilian  canons — Venality 

of  the  papal  court 390 


XVI 

CONTENTS. 

A. 

D. 

PAGE 

1484 

Condition  of  the  Gallican  church 

.         . 

.     391 

1489 

Corruption  in  England     . 

. 

.     392 

1496 

The  Spanish  church 

, 

.     392 

1496 

Relaxation  of  monastic  discipline 

. 

393 

1476 

Demoralization  in  Germany 

. 

.     394 

1450- 

-1498 

In  Hungary      .... 

395 

1492- 

-1499 

In  Pomerania  . 

395 

1494 

In  Sleswick 

. 

396 

1476 

John  of  Niklaushausen    . 

. 

397 

Sacerdotal  marriage  advocated  as  a 

remedy 

397 

1479 

John  of  Oberwesel    . 

, 

399 

1485 

Heresy  of  Jean  Laillier   . 

. 

400 

XXY.— THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY. 

Irreverential  spirit  of  the  sixteenth  century  .  402 

1510                 Complaints  of  the  Germans  against  the  church  403 

Immobility  of  the  church         .         .  '       .         .  404 

Popular  movement — Luther  and  Erasmus      .  406 

1518                 Official  opposition  to  the  abuses  of  the  church  408 

1517 — 1520     Luther  neglects  the  question  of  celibacy — his 

gradual  progress 409 

1521  First  examples  of  sacerdotal  marriage    .         .411 
Approved   by   Carlostadt  —  Disapproved  by 

Luther 412 

1522  Zwingli  demands  sacerdotal  marriage — Luther 

adopts  it 413 

1524  Efforts  of  the  church  to  repress  the  movement  415 
Popular    approbation  —  Protection    in    high 

quarters 416 

1523 — 1524     Emancipation  of  nuns  and  monks  .         .         .  417 

1525  Marriage  of  Luther 418 

Causes  of  popular  acquiescence  in  the  change  419 

Extreme  immorality  of  the  clergy  .         .         .  420 

Admitted  by  the  Catholics  to  justify  heresy  .  421 

1522 — 1526     Erasmus  advocates  clerical  marriage       .        .  423 

Assistance  from  ambition  of  temporal  princes  425 

1530                Efforts  at  reunion — Confession  of  Augsburg  .  427 
Failure  of  reconciliation — League  of  Schmal- 

calden 429 

The  Anabaptists 429 


CONTENTS.  XV11 


1532 — 1541     Partial  toleration — Difficulties  concerning  the 

Abbey  lands 430 

1 548                 The  Interim — Sacerdotal  marriage  tolerated   .  432 
1552                 The  Reformation  established  by  the  Transac- 
tion of  Passau 434 

XXVL— THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT. 

1524—1536  Efforts  at  internal  reform  ....  435 
Universal  demand  for   a   general   council  — 

Convoked  at  Mantua  in  1536  .  .  .  439 
1542 — 154*     Assembles  at  Trent — it  labors  to  separate,  not 

to  reunite  the  churches         ....  440 

1551 — 1552     Reassembles  at  Trent — is  again  broken  up     .  441 

1562  Again  assembles  for  the  last  time    .         .         .  441 
1536                 Paul  III.  essays  an  internal  reform  without 

result    ........  441 

1548                 Charles  V.  tries  to  reform  the  German  church  442 
1548 — 1551     Local  reformatory  synods — their  failure         .  443 
1560                 The  Emperor  Ferdinand  and  his  princes  de- 
mand clerical  marriage          ....  447 

The  corruption   of  the  clergy  urged  as  the 

reason  for  the  change 448 

1563  The  Gallican  church  is  willing  to  assent  to  it  450 

1563  The  council  makes  celibacy  a  point  of  faith  .  452 
Reasons  of  policy  for  this  decision  .  .  453 
Decree  of  Reformation 455 

1563 — 1564  The  German  princes  continue  their  efforts  .  456 
Essays  of  Cassander  and  Wicelius  in  favor  of 

the  change 458 

1564  Maximilian  II.  renews  the  attempt  .  .  460 
His  demands  peremptorily  rejected         .         .461 

XXVIL— THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Conservative  tendencies  of  England  .  .  462 
1500—1523  John  Colet  and  Sir  Thomas  More  .  .  .463 
1524  Difficulties  of  the  situation — Wolsey  under- 
takes the  destruction  of  monachism  .  .  464 
1528  General  suppression  of  the  smaller  houses  .  466 
1532  Henry  YIII.'s  quarrel  with  Rome  .  ."  .  467 
2 


XV111  CONTENTS. 

A.  D.  PAGE 

1535  General  visitation  of  monasteries,  and   sup- 

pression of  most  of  them      ....  468 

Popular  opinions — The  Beggars'  Petition       .  469* 

1536  Popular  discontent — The  Pilgrimage  of  Grace  470 
1537 — 1546     Pinal  suppression  of  religious  houses      .         .  472 

Pate  of  their  inmates        .         .         ...         .  476 

1535 — 1541  Irish  monastic  establishments  destroyed  .  477 
Henry  still  insists  on  celibacy  .  .  .477 
Efforts  to  procure  its  relaxation      .         .         .479 

1537  Uncertainty  of  the  subject  in  the  public  mind  480 

1539  Henry's  firmness — Act  of  the  Six  Articles  .  481 
Persecution  of  the  married  clergy  .         .         .  486 

1540  Modification  of  the  Six  Articles       .         .         .  486 
1547                 Accession  of  Edward  VI. — Repeal  of  the  Six 

Articles 487 

1548 — 1549     Full  liberty  of  marriage  accorded  to  the  clergy  488 

Armed  opposition  of  the  people       .         .         .  489 

1552  Adoption  of  the  Forty-two  Articles  .  .  490 
Difficulty  of  removing  popular  convictions      .  491 

1553  Accession   of  Queen   Mary  —  Legislation   of 

Edward  repealed .492 

1554  The  married  clergy  separated  and  deprived  .  493 
Suffering  of  the  clergy  in  consequence  .  .  495 
England  reconciled  to  Rome — Church  lands 

not  recalled 496 

1555  Cardinal  Pole's  Legatine  Constitutions           .  497 

1557  More  stringent  legislation  required — Revival 

of  the  old  troubles 498 

1558  Accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth          .         .         .  499 

1559  Delay  in  authorizing  marriage — Uncertainty 

of  the  married  clergy 500 

Elizabeth  yields,  but  imposes  degrading  re- 
strictions on  clerical  marriage      .         .         .501 
1563  The  Thirty-nine  Articles — Increased  emphasis 

of  permission  to  marry         ....  503 

Elizabeth  maintains  her  prejudices           .         .  504 
Disrepute  of  sacerdotal  marriage — Evil  effects 

on  the  Anglican  clergy         ....  505 


CONTENTS.  XIX 


XXVIIL— THE  SCOTTISH  REFORMATION. 

A.  D.  PAGE 

H94                The  Lollards  of  Kyle 508 

Corruption  of  the  Scottish  church  in  the  six- 
teenth century 509 

1542 — 1559     Efforts  at  internal  reform — their  fruitlessness  511 
Marriage  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course  by 

the  Protestants 514 

Temporal  motives  assisting  the  Reformation  515 

Poverty  of  the  Scottish  church  establishment  517 

Influence  of  celibacy  on  the  struggle        .         .  518 
1560                 Xo   formal  recognition  of  clerical  marriage 

thought  necessary 520 


XXIX.— THE  POST-TRIDENTINE  CHURCH. 

Reception  of  the  Council  of  Trent  throughout 

Europe 522 

1566 — 1572  Pius  V.  endeavors  to  effect  a  reform  .  .  523 
1568 — 15T0  Labors  of  St.  Charles  Borromeo  at  Milan  .  526 
1565 — 159T  Reforms  attempted  by  Italian  councils  .  .  528 
1569 — 1168  Condition  of  the  church  in  Central  Europe  .  529 
•  Marriage  still  practised  until  1628  .         .     529 

Clerical  immorality    still    a    provocative    to 

heresy 531 

Attempts  to  purify  the  church  after  the  peace 

of  Westphalia 
Abuse  of  the  confessional 
Abuse  of  the  power  of  absolution 
1560 — 1640     Condition  of  the  church  in  France 
Fruitless  efforts  at  purification 
The  Huguenot  churches  . 


.  533 

.  535 

.  536 

.  537 

.  537 

.  539 

Relations  between  Catholics  and  Huguenots  541 


■&■ 


XXX THE  CHURCH  OF  TO-DAY. 

Sacerdotal  marriage  obsolete — Grandier,  Du 

Pin,  Bossuet 543 

1758 — 1800     The   eighteenth    century  —  Controversy   re- 
opened   544 


XX  CONTENTS. 

A.  D.  PAGE 

1183                 Joseph  II.  proposes  to  permit  sacerdotal  mar- 
riage     ........  545 

1789                 The  French  Revolution 546 

1789 — 1790     Confiscation  of  church  property — Suppression 

of  monachism        ......  547 

1791                 Celibacy  deprived  of  legal  protection — Mar- 
riage of  priests 549 

1793                 Marriage  becomes  a  test  of  good  citizenship    .  550 
1793                 Persecution  of  the  unmarried  clergy        .         .  551 
Resistance  of  the  great  body  of  the  clergy      .  552 
1795 — 1797     Married  clergy  repudiated  by  their  bishops     .  553 
1801                 Celibacy  restored  by  the  Concordat         .         .  554 
1801 — 1807     Clerical   marriage  continues — Napoleon  de- 
cides against  it     .....         .  555 

1821  It  is  nevertheless  legalized  under  the  Resto- 

»                     ration 556 

1862  Case  of  M.  de  Brou-Lauriere  .  .  .  .557 
Internal  economy  of  the  church  in  France  .  559 
1860 — 1866  Italy — Legalization  of  clerical  marriage — Sup- 
pression of  monachism  ....  560 
1866  Hungary — Movements  adverse  to  celibacy  .  564 
1866                 Anglican    reaction  —  Ritualism  —  Protestant 

Sisterhoods 564 

Flourishing  condition  of  Latin  monachism     .  566 
1801 — 1866     Charitable  Sisterhoods  —  Practical  character 

of  modern  monachism  .         .         .         .567 


>   1 1   .  \ 


IX  J  YKI.'SITV    <>| 

CALIFORNIA. 


SACERDOTAL  CELIBACY 


The  Latin  church  is  the  great  fact  which  dominates  the 
history  of  modern  civilization.  All  other  agencies  which 
moulded  the  destinies  of  Europe  were  comparatively  isolated 
or  sporadic  in  their  manifestations.  Thus  in  one  place  we 
may  trace  the  beneficent  influence  of  commerce  at  work ;  in 
another  the  turbulent  energy  of  the  rising  Third  Estate  j  the 
mortal  contests  of  the  feudal  powers  with  each  other  and  with 
progress  are  waged  in  detached  and  convulsive  struggles; 
chivalry  casts  only  occasional  and  evanescent  flashes  of  light 
amid  the  darkness  of  military  barbarism ;  literature  attaches 
itself  to  whatever  support  will  condescend  to  lend  transitory 
aid  to  the  plaything  of  the  moment.  Nowhere  do  we  see 
combined  effort,  nowhere  can  we  detect  a  pervading  impulse, 
irrespective  of  locality  or  of  circumstance,  save  in  the  im- 
posing machinery  of  the  church  establishment.  This  meets 
us  at  every  point,  and  in  every  age,  and  in  every  sphere  of 
action.  In  the  dim  solitude  of  the  cloister,  the  monk  is  train- 
ing the  minds  which  are  to  mould  the  destinies  of  the  period, 
while  his  roof  is  .the  refuge  of  the  desolate  and  the  home  of 
the  stranger.  In  the  tribunal,  the  priest  is  wrestling  with  the 
baron,  and  is  extending  his  more  humane  and  equitable  code 
over  a  jurisdiction  subjected  to  the  caprices  of  feudal  or 
customary  law,  as  applied  by  a  race  of  ignorant  and  arbitrary 
tyrants.  In  the  royal  palace,  the  hand  of  the  ecclesiastic, 
visible  or  invisible,  is  guiding  the  helm  of  state,  regulating 
the  policy  of  nations,  and  converting  the  brute  force  of 
chivalry  into  the  supple  instrument  of  his  will.  In  Central 
2 


18  THE    CHURCH. 

Europe,  lordly  prelates,  with  the  temporal  power  and  pos- 
sessions of  the  highest  princes,  joined  to  the  exclusive  pre- 
tensions of  the  church,  make  war  and  peace,  and  are  sovereign 
in  all  but  name,  owing  no  allegiance  save  to  Emperors  whom 
they  elect  and  Popes  whose  cause  they  share.  Ear  above  all, 
the  successor  of  St.  Peter  from  his  pontifical  throne  claims  all 
Europe  as  his  empire,  and  dictates  terms  to  kings  who  crouch 
under  his  reproof,  or  are  crushed  in  the  vain  effort  of  rebellion. 
At  the  other  extremity  of  society,  the  humble  minister  of  the 
altar,  with  his  delegated  power  over  heaven  and  hell,  wields 
in  cottage  as  in  castle  an  authority  hardly  less  potent,  and 
sways  the  minds  of  the  faithful  writh  his  right  to  implicit 
obedience.  Even  art  offers  a  willing  submission  to  the  uni- 
versal mistress,"  and  seeks  the  embodiment  of  its  noblest  aspi- 
rations in  the  lofty  poise  of  the  cathedral  spire,  the  rainbow 
glories  of  the  painted  window,  and  the  stately  rhythm  of  the 
solemn  chant. 

Human  institutions  are  more  or  less  transitory  in  propor- 
tion as  they  are  well  or  ill  adapted  to  the  moral  and  physical 
needs  of  the  age  and  race.  In  considering  the  church  in  its 
merely  human  aspect,  its  twelve  centuries  of  supremacy  maniv 
festly  indicate  that  it  constituted  the  best  system  of  ecclesi- 
astical polity  possible  under  the  circumstances.  Unreasoning 
veneration  may  be  blind  to  its  errors,  and  may  dignify  its 
crimes  as  necessary  services  to  God  :  philosophical  skepticism 
may  sneer  at  the  energy  of  its  faith,  and  may  wilfully  over- 
look its  immense  contributions  to  the  real  progress  of  man- 
kind :  but  the  impartial  historian  must  ever  regard  it  as  a 
mighty  power  intrusted  by  Providence  to  the  guidance  of 
man  for  the  most  momentous  purposes.  Swayed  by  human 
passion,  -degraded  by  low  ambitions,  it  may  at  times  have 
shown  little  trace  of  its  origin,  and  have  given  slender 
assurance  of  its  predestined  effects,  yet  the  good  has  for  out- 
weighed the  evil,  and  the  results  are  in  our  present  and  our 
future. 

This  vast  fabric  of  ecclesiastical  supremacy  presents  one  of 
the  most  curious  problems  which  the  world's  histoiy  affords. 
So  wide  and  so  absolute  a  rule,  deriving  its  force  from  moral 
power  alone,  marshalling   no    legions  of  its  own  in  battle 


THE   CHURCH.  19 

array-,  but  permeating  everything  with  its  influence,  walking 
unarmed  through  deadly  strife,  rising  with  renewed  Btrength 
from  every  prostration,  triumphing  alike  over  the  savage 
nature  of  the  barbarian  and  the  enervated  apathy  of  the 
Roman  tributary,  blending  discordant  races  and  jarring 
nations  into  one  great  brotherhood  of  subjection — such  was 
the  Papal  hierarchy,  a  marvel  and  a  mystery.  Well  is  it 
personified  in  Gregory  VII.,  a  fugitive  from  Kome  without 
a  rood  of  ground  to  call  him  master,  a  rival  Pope  Lording  it 
in  the  Vatican,  a  triumphant  Emperor  vowed  to  internecine 
strife,  yet  issuing  his  commands  as  sternly  and  as  proudly  to 
prince  and  potentate  as  though  he  were  the  unquestioned 
suzerain  of  Europe,  and  listened  to  as  humbly  by  three- 
fourths  of  Christendom.  The  man  wasted  away  in  the 
struggle ;  his  death  was  but  the  accident  of  time :  the  church 
lived  on,  and  marched  to  inevitable  victory. 

The  investigations  of  the  curious  can  hardly  be  deemed 
misapplied  in  analyzing  the  elements  of  this  impalpable  but 
irresistible  power,  and  in  examining  the  causes  which  have 
enabled  it  to  preserve  such  unity  of  action  amid  such  diversity 
of  surroundings,  presenting  everywhere  by  turns  a  solid  and 
united  front  to  the  opposing  influences  of  barbarism  and 
civilization.  In  detaching  one  of  these  elements  from  the 
group,  and  tracing  out  its  successive  vicissitudes,  I  may 
therefore  be  pardoned  for  thinking  the  subject  of  sufficient 
interest  to  warrant  a  minuteness  of  detail  that  would  other- 
wise perhaps  appear  disproportionate. 

The  Janizaries  of  the  Porte  were  Christian  children,  re- 
cruited by  the  most  degrading  tribute  which  tyrannical  inge- 
nuity has  invented.  Torn  from  their  homes  in  infancy,  every 
tie  severed  that  bound  them  to  the  world  around  them ;  the 
past  a  blank,  the  future  dependent  solely  upon  the  master 
above  them;  existence  limited  to  the  circle  of  their  comrades, 
among  whom  they  could  rise,  but  whom  they  could  never 
leave;  such  was  the  corps  which  bore  down  the  bravest 
of  the  Christian  chivalry  and  carried  the  standard  of  the 
Prophet  in  triumph  to  the  walls  of  Vienna.  Mastering  at 
length  'their  master,  they  wrung  from  him  the  privilege  of 
marriage:  and  the  class  in  becoming  hereditary,  with  human 


20  THE   CHURCH. 

hopes  and  fears  disconnected  with  the  one  idea  of  their 
service,  no  longer  presented  the  same  invincible  phalanx,  and 
at  last  became  terrible  only  to  the  effeminate  denizens  of  the 
seraglio.  The  example  is  instructive,  and  affords  grounds 
for  the  assumption  that  the  canon  which  bound  all  the  active 
ministers  of  the  church  to  perpetual  celibacy,  and  thus  created 
an  impassable  barrier  between  them  and  the  outer  world,  was 
one  of  the  efficient  instruments  in  creating  and  consolidating 
both  the  temporal  and  spiritual  power  of  the  Eoman  hierarchy. 


I    N  IV  KKS  IT  V    <)|- 

CALIFORNIA. 


I. 

THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH. 

The  most  striking  contrast  between  the  Mosaic  Dispensa- 
tion and  the  Law  of  Christ  is  the  materialism  of  the  one,  and 
the  pure  spiritualism  of  the  other.  The  Hebrew  prophet 
threatens  worldly  punishments,  and  promises  fleshly  rewards : 
the  Son  of  Man  teaches  us  to  contemn  the  treasures  of  this 
life,  save  the  inward  peace  derived  from  the  approbation  of 
the  Father,  and  directs  all  our  fears  and  aspirations  towards 
eternity.  The  change  is  abrupt,  the  distinction  sudden,  and 
though  the  immediate  followers  of  Christ  might  imitate  him 
in  moderate  and  cheerful  use  of  the  natural  enjoyments 
bestowed  on  man  by  a  beneficent  Creator,  it  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at  if  fiery  and  self-denying  zeal  should  ere  long 
lead  ardent  disciples  to  render  the  straight  and  narrow  way 
yet  straighter  and  narrower..  The  highest  expression  of 
Christian  philosophy,  that  this  life  is  but  a  preparation  for 
the  life  to  come,  in  such  minds  produced  the  conviction  that 
the  surest  mode  of  securing  the  eternal  joys  of  heaven  was  to 
sternly  turn  away  from  the  transitory  joys  of  earth ;  and  the 
corollary  soon  followed,  that  only  by  conquering  and  morti- 
fying the  flesh  could  the  soul  be  rendered  a  worthy  partici- 
pant in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Eedeemer.  This  would  be  the 
theory  and  practice  of  those  especially  whose  strength  of  will, 
resolute  character,  and  singleness  of  purpose  would  mark 
them  as  the  leaders  of  their  fellows ;  and  the  admiration  of 
the  multitude  for  their  superior  virtue  and  fortitude  would 
soon  invest  them  with  a  reputation  for  holiness  which  would 
render  them  doubly  influential.  In  this  way  we  can  readily 
account  for  the  early  introduction  in  the  Christian  church  of 
a  principle  of  asceticism  totally  foreign  to  the  teachings  of  a 
benignant  Saviour. 


22  THE   PRIMITIVE   CHURCH. 

It  was  natural  that  this  asceticism  should  lay  restrictions  on 
the  intercourse  of  the  sexes,  for  traces  of  such  a  principle  are 
to  be  found  in  the  religious  observances  of  many  nations. 
That  the  Jews,  notwithstanding  their  anxiety  for  numerous 
offspring,  entertained  ideas  of  peculiar  sanctity  as  attaching 
to  the  restraint  of  the  animal  passions,  is  shown  by  the  occa- 
sional practices  of  the  Dositheans,  by  the  pomegranate  orna- 
ments of  the  Scribes,  and  by  the  vows  of  continence  of  the 
Pharisees  j1  nor  are  the  Christian  hermits  without  their  pro- 
totypes in  the  ascetic  lives  of  the  Essenes.2  How  fierce  was 
sometimes  the  struggle  requisite  to  conquer  the  fiery  Israel- 
itish  blood,  we  learn  from  the  remarkable  text  which  chroni- 
cles the  occasional  practice  of  self-mutilation.3  These  various 
observances  were  not  improbably  derived  from  the  remoter 
East,  where  many  analogous  practices  were  in  common  use. 
According  to  the  tract  which  passes  under  the  name  of  the 
"  Confession  of  St.  Cyprian,"  the  Chaldee  sages  were  accus- 
tomed to  train  their  neophytes  in  habits  of  the  austerest 
asceticism.4  The  Brahminical  doctrines  attach  the  greatest 
importance  to  the  possession  of  male  descendants  ;5  but  after 
this  was  assured  by  the  birth  of  a  grandson,  the  Dwiclja6  was 
directed  to  abandon  home  and  family  to  betake  himself  to  the 
forests  and  lead  the  life  of  a  Yanaprastha.     He  might  be  ac- 


1  Epiphanii  Panar.  Hseres.  xm.  xv.  I  the  principal  saint  of  the  Order,  Ner- 
xvi.  I  zim,  are  rather  Christian  than  Moslem 

2  Philastrii  Lib.  de  H*res.  P.  i.  \  ^  doctrine.-Loniceri  Chron.  Turcic. 
■j^0   g  Lib.  ii.  P.  n.  cap.  11. 

»  Et  sunt  eunuchi  qni  castraverunt  I  .,  '  The  faddha,  or  periodical  obla- 
seipsos  propter  regnum  coelorum  I  J10*  *?  f e  dea, d'  could  ?»l?  beP«r" 
(Matt.xix.12).    Notwithstanding  the  !l°rmed    V   male    posterity     and   its 

figurative  interpretation  generally  be-    ^    !        *1™**   ^   wLw  ^  n' 
f       j  ,,  •  •*      !•*      i    ancestors     from    heaven     into    hell, 

stowed   on   this   passage,   its    literal    /To         -  AT  «  "    „"    .      TT 

it  x  (Laws  of  Manu,  B.  iv.  st.  257.^     Va- 

sense  would  appear  to  me  more  pro-    \  ,.       '  '         P      ' 

babl  **  p         nous  expedients  were  therefore  resort- 

j  ed  to  in  default  of  nature.     (Ibid.  B. 

4  Hi  mihi  ostenderunt  singulorum    ix.)     Even  members  of  the  sacerdotal 

spirituum  aeris  virtutem,  facientes  me    caste  were  not  exempt  from  this  ne- 

abstinere  ab  escaanimalium  et  a  vino  j  cessity,  nor  were  they  subject  to  any 


et  a  concubitu. — Confess.  S.  Cyprian. 
(Opp.  Oxon.  1682,  Mantiss.  p.  54.) 

Among  the  Turks,  the  order  of  Ca- 
lenders is  bound  to  perpetual  virgin- 
ity. Msenavinus,  who  during  his 
captivity  in  Constantinople  acquired 


special  restrictions  on  marital  inter- 
course, whether  householders  or  an 
chorites.      (Ibid.  B.  m.  st.  50.) 

6  The    Dwidja   was    a   member    of 
either  of  the  three  higher  castes,  Brah- 


considerable  familiarity  with  Turkish  i  min'  KchtatAJ£Vr  7^1^?  TM 
literature,  asserts  that  the  writings  ofi  "generated  by  the  study  of  the  Vedas. 


EXAMPLES    OF    RELIGIOUS    ASCETICISM. 


23 


companied  by  his  wife,  but  the  severest  austerities  were 
enjoined  upon  him  to  conquer  the  passions  and  the  organs  of 
the  senses.  If  he  died  in  consequence,  his  spirit  was  received 
by  Brahma  with  peculiar  honor.1  After  passing  through  this 
course  of  probation,  he  was  then  fitted  for  admission  to  the 
higher  order  of  ascetics,  the  Yatis  or  Sannyasis,  who  might 
wander  through' the  towns  and  villages,  subsisting  on  charity, 
and  passing  their  lives  abstracted  from  the  world  in  ascetic 
re  very,  which  led  them  to  the  supreme  good  of  absorption  in 
Brahma.2  The  practical  common  sense  of  the  Aryan  legisla- 
tor, however,  which  so  strangely  diversifies  the  extravagances 
of  his  code,  induced  him  to  forbid  these  practices  until  after 
all  the  duties  which  man  owes  to  society  had  been  thoroughly 
fulfilled.3 

A  still  nearer  approach  to  the  discipline  of  Latin  Chris- 


1  Laws  of  Maim,  Bk.  vi.  st.  1-32. 
Among  the  austerities  prescribed  were 
standing  for  a  whole  day  a-tiptoe  ;  ex- 
posure to  the  sun  in  summer ;  wear- 
ing wet  garments  in  winter,  or  braving 
the  rain  naked,  &c. 

2  This  mode  of  life  bears  so  strong 
a  resemblance  to  the  ideal  for  which 
the  Christian  anchorites  so  strenu- 
ously strove,  that  some  of  the  direc- 
tions of  Mann  may  not  be  without 
interest. 

St.  43.  "  Let  him  have  neither  fire 
nor  house ;  when  pressed  by  hunger 
he  may  seek  his  food  in  the  village  ; 
let  him.be  resigned  with  firm  resolu- 
tion ;  let  him  meditate  in  silence,  and 
fix  his  soul  upon  the  Divine  being. 

44.  "  An  earthen  bowl,  a  vile  gar- 
ment, the  roots  of  trees  for  a  house, 
unbroken  solitude,  a  bearing  which 
changes  for  none,  these  are  the  signs 
which  mark  the  Brahmin  who  nears 
his  final  deliverance. 

45.  "Let  him  not  wish  for  death, 
let  him  not  wish  for  life  ;  let  him 
await  the  destined  moment,  as  a  serv- 
ant awaits  his  wages. 

80.  "  When  by  a  perfect  knowledge 
of  evil  he  becomes  insensible  to  all 
the  pleasures  of  sense,  he  attains  hap- 
piness in  this  world,  and  eternal  be- 
atitude in  the  next. 

81.  "  Being  thus  gradually  relieved 


from  all  worldly  affections,  rendered 
insensible  to  all  conflicting  conditions, 
as  of  honor  and  dishonor,  he  is  absorbed 
forever  in  Brahma." 

3  St.  35.  "  After  having  paid  the 
three  debts,  to  the  Saints,  to  the 
Manes,  and  to  the  Gods,  let  him  direct 
his  soul  to  the  final  deliverance  ;  but 
he  who,  before  paying  these  debts, 
strives  for  beatitude,  plunges  himself 
into  the  infernal  gulf. 

36.  "  After  he  has  studied  the  Ve- 
das  in  the  manner  ordained  by  the 
law ;  after  he  has  legally  begotten 
sons,  and  offered  as  many  sacrifices  as 
he  is  able,  his  three  debts  are  paid, 
and  he  can  then  think  only  of  the 
final  deliverance. 

37.  "But  the  Brahmin  who,  with- 
out having  studied  the  Holy  Books, 
without  having  begotten  sons  and 
made  the  sacrifices,  strives  for  beati 
tude,  is  destined  to  Hell." 

These  injunctions  are  so  formal  and 
precise  that  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  description  of  the  Gymno- 
sophists  of  India,  as  given  by  Strabo, 
who  states  (Lib.  xv.)  that  they  pass- 
ed thirty-seven  years  in  ascetic  prac- 
tices, after  which  they  were  at  liberty 
to  marry,  when  unlimited  polygamy 
was  permitted.  See  also  Clement. 
Alexand.  Stromat.  Lib.  ill. 


24 


THE   PRIMITIVE    CHURCH. 


tianity  may  be  found  in  the  rule  adopted  by  Gotama  Budha, 
who,  six  centuries  before  Christ,  founded  a  religion  which  to 

this  day  numbers  more  votaries  than  any  other  among  men 

a  rule  which  enjoins  the  strictest  celibacy  on  his  sacerdotal 
class,  under  penalty  of  expulsion.1  If,  as  has  been  supposed, 
similar  abstinence  was  inculcated  by  Pythagoras,  it  is  doubt- 
less attributable  to  the  influence  of  his  Indian  studies.2  The 
religious  observances  of  other  races  show  slighter  and  yet  dis- 
tinctive traces  of  a  similar  principle.  The  Egyptian  priests 
were  allowed  but  one  wife,  while  unlimited  polygamy  was 
permitted  to  the  people.3  The  priestesses  of  the  Delphic 
Apollo,  the  Achaian  Juno,  and  the  Scythian  Diana,  were  vir- 
gins. In  Africa,  those  of  Ceres  were  separated  from  their 
husbands  with  a  rigor  of  asceticism  that  forbade  even  a  kiss 
to  their  orphaned  children  ;  while  in  Rome,  the  name  of  Ve&- 
tal  has  passed  into  a  proverb.4 

Yet  this  spirit  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  doctrines  taught  by 
Christ  and  his  chosen  disciples,  if  we  read  their  words  as  plain 
practical  precepts  addressed  to  the  reason  of  mankind  at  large, 
however  ingenious  may  be  the  fanciful  interpretations   by 


1  "  Any  bhikkhu  (priest)  who  has 
engaged  to  live  according  to  the  laws 
given  to  the  priesthood,  if  he  shall, 
without  having  made  confession  of  his 
weakness,  and  become  a  laic,  hold 
intercourse  with  a  female  of  whatever 
kind  soever,  is  overcome  and  exclud- 
ed." (Hardy,  Eastern  Monachism,  p. 
8.)  The  strong  tendency  of  Buddhism 
to  monastic  asceticism  may  be  esti- 
mated from  the  fact  that  in  the  four- 
teenth century,  the  city  of  Ilchi,  in 
Chinese  Tartary,  the  headquarters  of 
that  religion  in  Central  Asia,  possessed 
fourteen  monasteries,  averaging  three 
thousand  devotees  to  each.  (See  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  Royal  Geographical 
Society  in  the  London  "Reader"  of 
Nov.  17,  186(3.) 

2  Clement.  Alexandria  Stromat. 
Lib.  in. 

3  Diod.  Siculi  Lib.  i.  c.  80.  This 
may  perhaps  have  arisen  from  the 
vow  of  continence  made  by  Isis  after 
the  death  of  her  husband-brother  Osi- 
ris (Ibid.  Lib.  i.  c.  27).     Tertullian 


sorrowfully  exclaims  (De  Monogam.  c. 
xvii.)  "Etiam  bovis  illius  JSgyptii 
antistites  de  continentia  infirmitatem 
Christianorum  judicabunt." 

4  Pontifex  Maximus  et  Flaminica 
nubunt  semel.  Cereris  sacerdotes, 
viventibus  etiam  viris  et  consentien- 
tibus  arnica  separatione  viduantur. 
Sunt  et  quae  de  tota  continentia  judi- 
cent  nos,  virgines  Vestse  et  Junonis 
Achaicae,  et  Dianas  Scythicfe,  et  Apol- 
linis  Pythii.    (Tertullian.  ubi  sup.) 

And  again,  "  Achseae  Junoni  apud 
iEgium  oppidum  virgo  sortitur :  et 
qua?  Delphis  insaniunt  nubere  nesci- 
unt.  Ceterum,viduas  Africans?  Cereri 
assistere  scimus,  durissima  quidem  ob- 
livione  a  matrimonio  allectas.  Nam 
manentibus  in  vita  viris,  non  modo 
thoro  decedunt,  sed  et  alias  eis  utique 
ridentibus  loco  suo  insinuant, adempto 
omnl  contactu,  usque  ad  osculum  fili- 
orurn:  et  tamen  durante  usu  perseve- 
rant  in  tali  viduitatis  disciplina,  quae 
pietatis  etiam  sanctae  solatia  exclud- 
it."  (Tertull.  ad  Uxorem  Lib.  i.  c.  6.) 
Cf.  Hieron.  adv.  Jovin.  Lib.  i.  c.  26. 


EXAMPLES    OF    RELIGIOUS    ASCETICISM. 


25 


which  acute  intellects  have  endeavored  to  support  foregone 
conclusions.  It  seems  scarce  worth  while  to  attempt  an  elabo- 
rate commentary  on  texts  which  appear  so  difficult  to  mistake 
as  those  which  recommend  marriage  without  restriction,  im- 
plied or  expressed,  or  on  those  which  stigmatize  ascetic  prac- 
tices as  heretical.1  Though  the  text  "Defraud  ye  not  one  the 
other,  except  it  be  with  consent  for  a  time,  that  ye  may  give 
yourselves  to  fasting  and  prayer"  might  seem  unanswerable 
after  a  complicated  system  of  sacerdotalism  had  grown  up, 
with  its  ceaseless  observances,  it  had,  as  the  expression  "ex 
consensu"  shows,  no  such  meaning  as  applied  to  the  simple 
worship  directed  by  the  Apostle.  Dialectic  subtlety  may 
triumphantly  point  out  that  St.  Paul's  model  bishop  was  de- 
scribed as  "filios  habentem,"  and  not  "facientem ,"  but  the  re- 
flnement  of  the  argument  can  prove  nothing  but  the  weakness 
of  the  cause  which  requires  for  its  defence  ingenuity  so  per- 
verse. 

The  question  as  to  the  presumable  marriage  of  the  Apostles 
themselves  has  occupied  a  space  far  transcending  its  import- 
ance, in  the  controversy  respecting  this  portion  of  ecclesiastical 
discipline.  On  the  evidence  of  his  mother-in-law  and  of  his 
daughter  St.  Petronilla,  Peter  is  admitted  on  all  hands  to  have 
been  married-,  while  St.  John's  celibacy  is  agreed  to  with  simi- 
lar unanimity.  All  the  others,  however,  are  debatable,  and 
the  proofs  on  either  side  have  sufficed  to  convince  those  whose 
opinions  were  previously  made  up.  I  do  not  find  it  easy  to 
attribute  any  sense  other  than  that  of  marriage  to  the  well- 
known  text  in  which  St.  Paul  assumes  for  himself  and  his 
colleagues  the  right  to  be  accompanied  by  a  woman  ;2  while  a 
passage  in  St.  Ignatius  may  be  held  to  prove  the  same  point, 
or  to  prove  nothing,  according  to  the  reading  adopted.3    Ter- 


1  Act.  xv.  28-29  ;  Hebr.  xm.  4 ;  I. 
Cor.  vii.  2-11,  28  ;  I.  Tim.  in.  2,  4,  12, 
iv.  3,  v.  14;  Tit.  i.  5,  6,  &c. 

2  M«  ovx.  lyyy.iv  \tovcriav  aJeX^v  yvvamta. 
TTipixySiv  oos  xa.i  ol  \onrot  a7roj-ToXot,  nai  01 
a.fe'htyot  rov  Kvpiov  xai  Kr,<pa*  (I.  Cor.  IX.  5). 

The  exact  sense  of  the  passage  was  a 
subject  of  controversy  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Tertullian,  who  stoutly  main- 
tains that  ywama  is  to  be  rendered 
muh'erem  and  not  uxor  em  (De  Monog. 


c.  8),  while  his  contemporary,  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  who  is  even  better  au- 
thority, does  not  even  question  the 
other  interpretation  (Stromat.  Lib. 
in.). 

3  'l2j  nsrpov  xai  riatAcy,  xai  tmv  dXXaV 
'A7ro<7TcXa;v  tot  yafxai;  Trpos-o/un'kr^avroDV  (Ig- 
nat.  Epist.  ix.).  Baronius  (Ann.  57, 
No.  64)  asserts  that  the  allusion  to 
Paul  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  best 
MSS. 


26 


THE    PRIMITIVE    CHURCH 


tullian  admits  the  right  of  the  Apostles  to  marry,  although 
he  argues  that  all  except  Peter  set  the  example  to  the  faithful 
of  remaining  single  ;x  while  Clement  of  Alexandria  enumerates 
Peter,  Paul,  and  Philip  as  certainly  married,  speaks  of  the 
latter  as  giving  his  daughters  in  marriage,  and,  notwithstand- 
ing his  own  asceticism,  evidently  considers  that  married  life 
did  not  detract  from  the  holiness  of  apostleship.2 

There  would  appear  to  me  no  room  for  a  reasonable  doubt 
that  the  Apostles  and  their  immediate  disciples  felt  no  mis- 
givings as  to  the  compatibility  of  marriage  with  the  functions 
of  the  Christian  ministry.  It  can  hardly  be  questioned  that, 
had  it  entered  into  the  plan  of  the  new  dispensation  to  intro- 
duce a  custom  so  much  at  variance  with  the  practices  of  the 
popular  masses  from  among  which  converts  were  to  be  drawn, 
the  rule  would  have  been  enunciated  in  a  rigid  and  unmis- 
takable form.  So  far  was  this  from  being  the  case,  that  the 
Synod  of  Jerusalem  gave  positive  assurance  to  the  doubting 
and  weaker  brethren  that  their  zeal  was  not  to  be  taxed  by 
observances  difficult  of  obedience.3  If  further  proof  be 
wanted,  it  may  be  found  in  the  story  of  Nicholas  the  Deacon, 
who  offered  to  his  fellow-disciples  the  wife  whom  he  was 
accused  of  loving  with  a  too  engrossing  affection4 — although 
the  incident,  magnified  and  distorted  by  subsequent  writers, 
attributed  to  him  the  paternity  of  the  obscene  sect  which 
under  the  name  of  Nicolites  merited  the  reproof  of  St.  John,5 
and  which  afforded  to  the  sacerdotalists  of  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury the  inestimable  advantage  of  stigmatizing  their  adver- 
saries with  an  opprobrious  epithet  of  the  most  damaging 
character.6     In  addition  to  this  we  find  St.  Ignatius,  in  one  of 


1  Licebat  et  Apostolis  nubere  et 
uxores  circumducere  (De  Exhort.  Cas- 
titat.  c.  8).  Petrum  solum  invenio 
maritum,  per  socrum,  inonogamum 
prsesumo  .  .  .  ceteros  cum  maritos  non 
invenio,  aut  spadones  intelligain  ne- 
cesse  est,  aut  continentes  (De  Mono- 
gam,  c.  8). 

2  Stromat.  Lib.  in. 

3  Visum  enim  est  Sancto  Spiritui  et 
nobis  nihil  ultra  imponere  vobis  oneris 
quam  hsec  necessaria  :  Ut  abstineatis 
vos  ab  immolatis  simulachrorum  et 


sanguine  et  suffocato  et  fornicatione : 
a  quibus  custodientes  vos,  bene  age- 
tis.  Valete.— Act.  xv.  28,  29. 

4  Clement.  Alexand.  Stromat.  Lib. 


5  Apocalyps.  n.  6,  14,  15,  20. 

6  All  who  defended  clerical  marri- 
age against  the  asceticism  which  be- 
came dominant  in  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury were  branded  with  the  name  of 
this  disgusting  heresy,  and  the  au- 
thority of  St.  John  was  freely  invoked 


FIRST   THREE   CENTURIES. 


27 


his  epistles  which  is  authenticated  by  Eusebius,  making  use 
of  expressions  which  show  that  marriage  or  celibacy  was 
optional  among  his  contemporaries,  and  that  the  former  was 
not  considered  to  detract  in  any  way  from  the  holiness  of  the 
office  to  which  their  lives  were  devoted.1  These  negative  and 
positive  proofs  combined,  seem  to  me  to  form  as  perfect  a 
chain  of  argument  as  can  be  obtained  concerning  any  question 
which  is  nearly  two  thousand  years  old,  and  which  did  not 
form  a  subject  of  controversy  in  its  own  time.2 

During  the  first  three  centuries,  the  scanty  records  of  the 
church  which  remain  to  us  show  no  traces  of  the  adoption 
of  celibacy  as  a  compulsory  rule  for  its  ministers.  Polycarp, 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  expresses  his  grief  at  the 
misfortunes  of  a  priest  named  Valens  and  his  wife.3  About 
the  same  time  Irenaeus,  in  relating  the  career  of  Marcus  the 
magician,  chief  of  the  Marcosians,  alludes  to  a  deacon  in 
Asia  who  received  the  heresiarch  into  his  house,  and  whose 
misplaced  hospitality  was  rewarded  with  the  seduction  of  his 
pretty  wife,  showing  that  holy  orders  at  that  period  were  not 
considered  incompatible  with  marriage.4     There  can  be  no 


as  justifying  their  destruction.     How  ' 
degrading  was  the  comparison  a  refer- 
ence  to  Epiphanius    (Panar.    Hseres.  ' 
xxv.)  will  show.     The  injustice  thus 
inflicted  on  the  memory  of  the  worthy 
Nicholas  was  early  recognized,  for  St. 
Ignatius  speaks  of  the  sect  as  -J-evSovu-I 
[*ov<;,  and  the  Constitutiones  Aposto- ! 
licae  allude  to  it  in  similar  terms —  ■ 
"  alii   inverecunde  fornicantur,  quod 
nunc  faciunt  falsi  nominis  Nicolaitse" 
(Lib.  vi.  c.  8).     No  doubt  the  story; 
of  Nicholas  induced  the  libertines  of  I 
the  church  to  shield    their  excesses  ' 
under  his  honored  name,  little  imagin- 1 
ing  the  opprobrium  with  which  they 
would   cover  it  for  fifteen  centuries. 
In   1679,   E.  P.   Rothius  published  a  j 
dissertation  (De  Nlcholaitis)  in  which 
a    vast   mass  of  curious    learning  is 
brought    to    the    vindication    of    the 
Apostolic  deacon. 

1  After  alluding  to  Timothy,  John 
the  Baptist,  Titus,  Evodius,  and  Clem- 
ent "  qui  in  puritate  exegerunt  banc 
vitam,"  he  adds,  "non  quod  vitupe- 
rem  reliquos  divos  quod  rei  uxorise  se 


dederint,  horum  tantummodo  memini 
(opto  enim  ut  dignus  sim  in  regno 
ccelorum  ad  horum  pedes  locum  mihi 
dari)" — Epist.  ix. — I  quote  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Mag.  Biblioth.  Patrum, 
edition  of  1618  (T.  I.  p.  85). 

2  The  fact  that  no  original  authority 
could  be  adduced  is  partly  confessed 
by  the  fabrication  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury of  the  command  of  celibacy  in 
the  epistle  attributed  by  the  False 
Decretals  to  St.  Clement  of  Rome — 
"Si  vero  post  ordinationem  suam 
ministro  contigerit  proprium  inva- 
dere  cubile  uxoris,  sacrarii  non  in- 
tret  limina,  neque  sacrificii  portator 
fiat,  neque  altare  coutingat,"  &c. — 
Pseudo-Clement.  Epist.  n. 

3  Nimis  contristatus  sum  pro  Va- 
lente,  qui  presbyter  factus  est  ali- 
quando  a  pud  vos.  .  .  Valde  ergo 
fratres,  contristor  pro  illo  et  conjuge 
ejus,quibus  det  Dominuspoenitentiam 
vestram. — Polycarpi  Epist.  ad  Philip- 
pens. 

4  Epiphanii  Panar.  Haeres.  xxxiv. 


28 


THE   PRIMITIVE   CHURCH. 


reasonable  doubt  that  Tertullian  was  a  priest  at  the  time  when 
he  addressed  to  his  wife  the  earnest  exhortation  that  after  his 
death  she  should  refrain  from  a  second  marriage,  and  thus 
preserve  the  ascetic  purity  which  they  found  impossible  to 
maintain  during  their  married  life.1  Even  if  he  were  not,  the 
example  which  he  adduces  of  the  chastity  enforced  on  certain 
Pagan  priestesses,  when  that  of  Christian  ministers  would 
have  been  so  much  more  convincing,  and  his  care  to  defend 
himself  from  the  imputation  of  suggesting  that  Christ  had 
commanded  the  separation  of  husband  and  wife,2  show  that 
no  warrant  exists  for  supposing  that  in  the  Latin  church  of 
the  second  century  there  was  any  restriction  placed  on  the 
marital  intercourse  of  ecclesiastics.  The  same  conclusion  is 
traceable  from  the  whole  tenor  of  his  treatise  "  De  Mono- 
gamia,"  in  which  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  difference  ex- 
isting between  the  priesthood  and  the  laity  as  regards  their 
connubial  relations,  although  his  treatment  of  the  subject 
would  have  rendered  some  reference  necessary  to  such  a 
custom.  The  testimony  thus  derived  from  the  writings  of 
Tertullian  is  the  more  convincing,  since  the  Montanist  heresy 
which  he  embraced  consisted  of  asceticism  exaggerated  be- 
yond that  admitted  as  orthodox  by  the  church  of  his  time. 

Similar  conclusions  are  deducible  from  the  apologies  writ- 
ten about  the  year  150  by  Justin  Martyr,  about  180  by 
Athenagoras,  and  about  200  by  Minucius  Felix.  All  of  these 
Fathers,  in  defending  the  Christians  from  the  accusations 
popularly  brought  against  them  of  indiscriminate  licentious- 
ness, of  incest,  and  of  other  kindred  disorders,  speak  of  the 
chastity  and  sobriety  which  characterize  the  sect,  the  celibacy 
practised  by  some  members,  and  the  single  marriage  of  others, 
of  which  the  sole  object  was  the  securing  of  offspring  and 
not  the  gratification  of  the  passions.3     If  the  spiritual  guides 


1  Quam  facultatem  continentise 
quantum  possumus  diligamus :  quarn- 
primum  obvenerit,  imbibamus ;  ut 
quod  in  matrimonio  non  valuimus,  in 
viduitate  sectemur.  Amplectenda  oc- 
casio  est  quse  adimit  quod  necessitas 
imperabat. — Ad  Uxorem,  Lib.  i.  c.  7. 

2  After  alluding  to  the  greater  strict- 
ness of  the  new  law,  he  adds  :  "  Sed 


non  ideo  prremiserim  de  libertate 
vetustatis  et  posteritatis  castigatione, 
ut  prsestruam  Christum  separandis 
matrimoniis,  abolendis  conjunctioni- 
bus  advenisse,  quasi  jam  hinc  finem 
nubendi  prajscribam."    (Ibid.  c.  3.) 

3  Aut  principio  uxores  non  duce- 
bamus  nisi  liberorum  educandorum 
causa,  aut   repudiato   spretoque  con- 


FIRST    THREE    CENTURIES.  29 

of  the  Christians  had  been  vowed  to  celibacy,  neither  of  these 
writers  could  well  have  omitted  an  appeal  to  so  triumphant  a 
refutation  of  the  very  slanders  which  they  were  endeavoring 
to  rebut :  their  silence  is  therefore  as  strong  a  proof  as  nega- 
tive evidence  well  can  be,  while  they  further  afford  the  same 
testimony  as  Tertullian  of  the  absence  of  any  distinction  as 
regards  marriage  between  the  pastors  and  the  people.  Athen- 
agoras,  indeed,  in  another  passage,  shows  us  how  completely 
the  asceticism  which  already  had  commenced  was  voluntary 
and  not  a  portion  of  church  discipline,  and  also  how  strong 
was  the  disposition  to  restrain  it  within  the  bounds  of  reason. 
He  argues  that  the  heathen  gods  must  be  demons  because 
their  priests  and  worshippers  are  inspired  to  commit  such 
atrocities  upon  themselves,  as  the  priests  of  Ehea  who  submit 
to  self-mutilation,  those  of  Diana  who  scar  themselves  with 
wounds,  and  many  others  who  willingly  undergo  the  severest 
flagellation.  That  self-inflicted  suffering  could  propitiate  a 
beneficent  God  was  to  the  Christians  of  those  days  the  most 
absurd  of  paradoxes,  for  Athenagoras  reasons  that  God  cer- 
tainly urges  no  one  to  those  things  which  are  not  consonant 
with  his  nature ;  but  the  demon,  when  preparing  evil  for  any 
one,  commences  by  perverting  his  mind;  and  he  concludes 
that  as  God  is  absolutely  good,  he  must  ever  be  beneficent.' 


jugio,  omnino  coelibes  vivimus.  (Jus- ;  Mimic.  Felicis  Octavius.)  As  this 
tin.  Martyr.  Apol.  n.) — Itaque  uxo-  passage  of  Minucius  Felix  follows  a 
rem  quam  secundum  approbatas  nobis  fierce  onslaught  on  the  frightful  scan- 
leges  sibi  quisque  duxerit,  reputat  dais  of  the  Pagan  priesthood,  his 
non  in  aliam  quam  in  procreandse  silence  with  regard  to  the  clerical 
sobolis  finem.  .  .  Invenias  autem  order  of  the  Christians  is  conclusive 
multos  ex  nostris  in  utroque  sexu  qui  evidence  that  the  latter  were  not 
in  coelibatu  consenescant,  quod  in  hoc  bound  by  rules  or  customs  differing 
statu  Deo  conjunctures  se  futuros  from  the  laity. — Justin  Martyr,  in  his 
sperent  .  .  .  quare  vel  ut  natus  est  '  Explication es  (Quaest.  21),  alludes  to 
unusquisque  nostrum  manet,  vel  ,  monks  as  rejecting  the  marriage  tie, 
nuptiis  copulatur  unicis,  secundse  in  a  passage  wherein  he  could  scarcely 
enim  decorum  quoddam  adulterium  |  have  avoided  including  ecclesiastics 
sunt  .  .  .  Nam  qui  prima  uxore, :  in  general,  had  they  been  bound  by 
licet  defuncta,seipsum  privat,  adulter  |  any  rules  of  abstinence. 
est,quanquam  dissimulanter.  (Athen- !      .  _.  , 

ag.    pro    Christians    Legat.)-Unius  I         Deus  certe  ad  ea  qua?  prater  na- 
matrimonii  vinculo  libenter   inhere- !  turam  sunt  nemmem  movet- 

At  daemon,  homini  quura  struit  aliquot!  malum 
Pervertit  illi  primitus  mentem  suam. 


mus,  cupiditate  procreandi  aut  unam 
scimus  aut  nullam  .  .  .  plerique  in- 
violati  corporis  virginitate   perpetua 


Deusveroquum  absolute  bonus  sit, 


ruunturpotius  quam  eloriantur.    (M.    PerPetu0  beneficus  est.— Athenag.  pro 

v        Christian.  Lesat. 


30 


THE    PRIMITIVE    CHURCH 


It  required  less  than  two  centuries  to  see  the  oblation  of 
enthusiastic  suffering  transferred  from  Ehea  and  Diana  to 
Christ  and  the  Father. 

A  circumstance  recorded  as  occurring  about  the  middle  of 
the  third  century  shows  that  the  custom  of  the  church  re- 
mained unaltered.  An  African  priest  named  Novatus  pro- 
duced a  miscarriage  in  his  wife  by  brutally  kicking  her  during 
pregnancy,  and  was  arraigned  for  the  murder  of  his  unborn 
child,  not  for  violation  of  discipline.1  Towards  the  close  of 
the  same  century  are  to  be  placed  the  tAVo  oldest  collections 
of  ecclesiastical  regulations — the  "  Canones  Apostolorum"  and 
the  "  Constitutiones  Apostolorum."  Although  not  entitled 
to  the  honor  of  emanating  from  their  assumed  author,  St. 
Clement  of  Eome,  the  disciple  of  St.  Peter,  these  collections 
unquestionably  reflect  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  church  as 
they  existed  about  the  year  300,  and  their  allusions  to  our 
subject  are  therefore  decisive  as  respects  this  period.2 

The  Apostolic  Constitutions  contain  full  details  as  to  the 
qualifications  of  all  grades  of  the  clergy,  from  ostiarius  to 
bishop,  with  precise  directions  concerning  their  duties  and 
functions,  as  well  as  the  ritual  of  the  church.  Throughout 
these  injunctions  there  is  no  indication  that  celibacy  was  in 
any  way  a  necessity  of  the  clerical  character.     One  passage 


1  Uterus  uxoris  calce  percussus,  et 
abortione  properante,  in  parricidium 
partus  expressus.  Et  damnare  nunc 
audet  sacrificantium  maims,  cum  sit 
ipse  nocentior  pedibus,  quibus  Alius 
qui  nascebatur  occisus  est. — Cypriani 
Epist.  52  (Ed.  Anistelod.  1700). 

2  The  Apostolic  Constitutions  are 
probably  somewhat  earlier  in  date — 
not  far  from  A.  D.  275,  for  Eusebius 
writing  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth 
century  (Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  in.  c.  25) 
classes  them  with  the  doubtful  Gos- 
pels, and  the  Apocalypse,  as  not  in- 
cluded in  the  canon  of  the  Scriptures, 
but  nevertheless  admitted  by  the 
church — showing  that  their  origin 
had  already  been  lost  sight  of,  and 
that  their  authority  was  great.  Atha- 
nasius,  likewise,  about  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century,  enumerates  them 


among  those  works  which  though  not 
included  in  the  canon  are  yet  recom- 
mended by  the  church.  Epiphanius 
not  long  afterwards  refers  to  them  in 
terms  showing  the  high  estimation  in 
which  they  were  held  (See  Preface  to 
the  translation  of  Bishop  Bovius). 

The  Apostolic  canons  are  somewhat 
later  in  date,  and  have  been  very 
variously  estimated.  In  493  Pope 
Gelasius  placed  them  among  the  Apo- 
crypha (Dist.  xv.  can.  3,  §  64),  but 
did  not  consider  them  as  heretical. 
Dionysius  Exiguus  gives  fifty  of  them, 
but  most  of  the  remainder  have  also 
been  received  by  the  church  as  au- 
thoritative, the  45th,  46th,  67th,  and 
84th  being  the  only  ones  definitely  re- 
jected. At  the  same  time  Catholic 
writers  complain  that  they  have  been 
altered  and  corrupted  by  heretics  to 
suit  peculiar  doctrines. 


APOSTOLIC    CONSTITUTIONS   AND    CANONS.       31 

commands  that  the  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon  shall  be  men 
of  but  one  wife,  whether  that  wife  be  alive  or  dead ;  if  single 
when  admitted  to  orders,  then  no  subsequent  marriage  was 
permitted ;  if  married,  they  were  not  to  seek  other  wives,  bat 
to  be  content  with  those  whom  they  had  before  ordination. 
The  members  of  the  lower  grades,  the  subdeacon,  cantor, 
lector,  and  ostiarius,  were  likewise  to  be  men  of  one  wife,  but 
if  single  before  accepting  clericature,  to  them  marriage  was 
permitted,  and  even  recommended  as  a  precaution.  No  eccle- 
siastic was  allowed  to  marry  a  concubine,  a  slave,  a  widow, 
or  a  divorced  woman.1  In  short,  the  rules  which  still  govern 
the  Greek  church  are  correctly  and  succinctly  set  forth  as  the 
received  practice  of  the  third  century,  and  it  is  evident  that 
there  was  no  thought  of  enforcing  separation  on  those  who 
were  married  previous  to  ordination. 

The  Apostolic  Canons  present  a  system  of  discipline  iden- 
tical in  spirit  with  that  of  the  Constitutions.  The  bishop  or 
priest  who  should  separate  from  his  wife  under  plea  of  reli- 
gion was  threatened  with  excommunication,  and  was  deposed 
for  persistence.  The  husband  of  a  second  wife,  of  a  widow, 
a  courtesan,  an  actress,  or  a  slave,  was  ineligible.  No  one 
above  the  grade  of  cantor  was  allowed  to  marry  after  entering 
the  church.2 


1  Episcopum  et  presbyterum  ac  dia-    on   the   part  of  those   in    the   lower 
oonutn  dicimus  unius  uxoris  debere  !  grades, 
constitui,  sive  vivant  eorum  uxores,  I      „  ~  „   . 

sive   decesserint ;    non   licere   autem  CaS*  vi'    EP1SC0Pu3  aut  presbyter 

eis,  si  post  ordinationem  sine  nxore  uxorem  propnam  nequaquam  sub  ob- 
fuerint,  ad  nuptias.  transire  ;  vel  si  tentu  rehS">ms  abjiciat ;  si  vere  reje- 
uxores  habeant,  cum  aliis  coiijunm,  cent'  excommumcetur,  sed  et  si  per- 
sed  contentos  esse  ea  quaui  habentes  *everavent,  dejiciatur. 
ad  ordinationem  venerunt :  ministros  !  Can.xjii.  Si  quia  post  baptisma 
quoque,  cantores,  lectores,  ostiarios  ■**"»£■  *««"*  J»P?«  copulatus,  aut 
unius  uxoris  viros  esse  jubemus.  Si  co»cub'nai11  habuent,  non  potest  esse 
ante  nuptias  ad  clerum  venerunt,  con-  ePlsc0Pu*>  non  presbyter  aut  diaconus, 
cedimus  eis  ut  uxores  ducere  possint,  i  aut  .P1,orsils  ex  Mmerw  eorum  qui 
siquidem  hoc  expetent,ne  si  peccave-  rai»lster10  sac™  deaervmnt. 
rint,  poena  afficiantur.  Statuimus  Can.xviii.  Siquis  viduam  etejectam 
autem  nemini  licere  ex  clero  amicam,  I  f^epent,  aut  meretncem  aut  ancil 


vel  ancillam,  vel  viduam,  vel  repudi- 
atam  ducere,  ut  etiam  lex  vetat. — 
Constit.  Apostol.  Lib.  vi.  c.  17. 

It  would  seem  frc^m  the  expression 


lam,  vel  aliquam  de  his  quse  publicis 
spectaculis  mancipantur,  non  potest 
esse  episcopus  aut  presbyter,  aut  dia- 
conus, aut  ex  eo  numero  qui  ministerio 


concedimus  that   alTeady    there    were  I  Sac™  desel'vi"nt:    , 

doubts  as  to  the  propriety  of  marriage  I      CAX"  XIX*    ^U1'duas   m  conjugium 


32  THE   PRIMITIVE    CHURCH. 

Up  to  this  time — the  close  of  the  third  century  after  Christ — 
it  is  therefore  clear  to  a  demonstration  that  the  exercise  of 
the  sacred  functions  of  a  minister  of  the  church  was  not  con- 
sidered to  require  the  fanciful  purity  of  celibacy.  Indeed, 
this  was  generally  admitted  throughout  the  medieval  period 
by  the  most  respected  authorities  of  the  church,  and  it  was 
not  until  the  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century  ventured 
to  demand  sacerdotal  marriage  as  a  right  that  the  defenders  of 
Catholic  observances  deemed  it  essential  to  assert  for  the  rule 
a  persistent  existence  coeval  with  the  church  itself.  Thus,  in 
the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  Gratian,  the  most  learned 
canonist  of,  his  time,  in  the  "Decretum"  undertaken  at  the 
request  of  the  Pope,  which  has  ever  since  maintained  its 
position  as  the  standard  of  the  canon  law,  had  no  scruple  in 
admitting  that  the  rule  of  the  Greek  church  was  at  first  uni- 
versal, and  that  the  prohibition  of  clerical  marriage  was  the 
result  of  a  subsequent  enactment.1  The  reputation  of  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas  as  a  theologian  was  as  unquestioned  as  that 
of  Gratian  as  a  canonist,  and  the  Angelic  Doctor  admitted  as 
freely  as  the  canon  lawyer  that  compulsory  celibacy  was  an 
innovation  on  the  rules  of  the  primitive  church,  which  he*en- 
deavors  to  explain  by  the  superior  sanctity  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians rendering  them  superior  to  the  asceticism  requisite  to  the 
purity  of  a  degenerate  age,  even  as  no  modern  warrior  could 
emulate  the  exploit  of  Samson  in  throwing  himself  amid  a 
hostile  army  with  no  weapon  but  a  jaw-bone.  He  even  ad- 
mits that  Christ  required  no  separation  between  St.  Peter  and 
his  wife.2     Giraldus  Cambrensis  was  one  of  the  most  learned 


sorores  acceperit,  vel  filiam  fratris, 
clericus  esse  non  poterit. 

Can.  xxvii.  Imiuptis  autem  qui  ad 
clerum  profecti  sunt,  prsecipimus,  ut 
si  voluerint,  uxores  aecipiant ;  sed 
lectores  cantoresque  tantummodo. 

I  give  the  translation  of  Dionysius 
Exiguus  as  the  most  authoritative. 
He  evidently  considers  the  collection 
as  genuine,  though  in  his  preface  he 
admits  that  it  was  not  universally 
received. 

1  Quse  (conjugia)  §acerdotibus  ante 
prohibitionem  ubique  licita  erant,  et 
in  Orientali  ecclesia  usque  hodie  eis 


licere  probatur. — Gratian.  Comment, 
in  can.  13  Dist.  lvi.  See  also  Com- 
ment, in  Dist.  xxxi. 

2  Et  ideo  Petrum  quern  invenit  matri  - 
monio  junctum,  non  separavit  ab  ux- 
ore  ;  Joannem  tamen  volentem  nubere 
a  nuptiis  revocavit.  .  .  Nee  tamen 
quia  antiqui  patres  perfectionem  animi 
siraul  cum  divitiis  et  matrimonio  ha- 
buerunt,  quod  ad  magnitudinem  virtu- 
tis  pertinebat,  propter  hoc  infirmiores 
quique  debent  piwesumere  se  tantse 
esse  virtutis  ut  cum  divitiis  et  matri- 
monio possint  ad  perfectionem  per- 
venire ;    sicut   nee    aliquis    prresumit 


MEDIEVAL    OPINIONS. 


33 


men  of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries.  His  orthodoxy 
was  unquestioned,  and  as  Archdeacon  of  St.  David's  he  vigor- 
ously endeavored  to  enforce  the  rule  on  his  recalcitrant 
clergy.  Yet  in  a  strenuous  exhortation  to  them  to  amend 
the  error  of  their  ways  in  this  respect,  he  admits  that  clerical 
celibacy  has  no  Scriptural  or  Apostolic  warrant.1  How  gene- 
rally this  was  understood,  indeed,  is  manifest  when  we  see 
Alphonso  the  Wise  of  Castile,  about  the  middle  of  the  thir- 
teenth century,  asserting  the  fact  in  the  most  positive  manner, 
while  forbidding  marriage  to  the  priests  of  his  dominions,  in 
the  code  which  is  known  as  "Las  Siete  Partidas."2 

Though  the  assertion  that  celibacy  was  enjoined  on  the 
ecclesiastics  of  the  primitive  church  is  therefore  a  compara- 
tively modern  error,  yet  the  precepts  quoted  above  from  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  and  Canons  show  that  already  in  the 
third  century  certain  restrictions  were  recognized  as  to  the 
marriage  of  those  who  sought  to  enter  holy  orders.  To 
develop  these  will  require  a  brief  retrospect  of  the  period 
already  considered. 


hostes  inermis  invadere,  quia  Samson 
cum  mandibula  asini  inultos  hostium 
peremit.  Nam  illi  patres  si  tempus 
i'uisset  continentise  et  paupertatis  ser- 
vanda studiosius  hoc  implessent. — 
S.  Thomas  Aquinat.  Summ.  Theol.  n. 
ii.  Qmest.  186  Art.  4  §  3. 

1  Non  enim  in  Veteri,  non  in  novo 
Testamento,  vel  evangelicis  vel  apos- 
tolorum  scriptis,  prohibitum  invenietis 
sacerdotibus  copulam  conjugalem,sed 
tantumapatribus  sanctisetapostolicis 
viris  in  primitiva  ecelesia,  majoris  ho- 


nestatis  et  munditise  causa,generalibus 
|  conciliis  persnasuni  clero  occidentalis 

ecclesiae  fuit,  non  autem  orientalis. — 
1  Gemm.  Eccles.  Div.  n.  c.  vi. 

2  Casar  solien  todos  los  clerigos  an- 
tiguamiente  en  el  comienzo  de  la 
nuestra  ley,  segunt  lo  facien  en  la  ley 
vieja  de  los  judios  :  mas  despues  deso 

j  los  clerigos  de  occidente,  que  obede- 
cieron  siempre  a  la  eglesia  de  Roma, 

I  acordaron  de  vevir  en  castidat. — Las 

|  Siete  Partidas,  P.  i.  Tit.  vi.  ley  39. 

I 


LI  15  K  A  •• 

l    N  IVKKSITY    O 

( :.\  LI  KHUN  I A 


II. 

ASCETICISM. 

Although,  as  we  have  seen,  the  church  had  as  yet  adopted 
no  dogma  recognizing  the  peculiar  sanctity  of  celibacy,  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  the  spirit  of  asceticism  had  lain  dor- 
mant during  the  period  under  consideration.  The  passages 
quoted  above  from  Justin  Martyr  and  Athenagoras  show  that 
ardent  believers  sought  to  mortify  the  flesh  and  to  abstract 
themselves  from  worldly  cares  by  maintaining  the  purity  and 
isolation  of  a  single  life;  and  one  from  St.  Ignatius  indicates 
that  even  in  his  time  the  relative  merit  of  marriage  and 
abstinence  was  a  matter  of  warm  discussion.  Zealots  were 
not  wanting  who  boldly  declared  that  to  follow  the  precepts 
of  the  Creator  was  incompatible  with  salvation,  as  though  a 
beneficent  God  should  create  a  species  which  could  only  pre- 
serve its  temporal  existence  by  forfeiting  its  promised  eternity. 
Ambitious  men  were  to  be  found  who  sought  notoriety  or 
power  by  the  reputation  to  be  gained  from  self-denying 
austerities,  which  brought  them  followers  and  believers  vene- 
rating them  as  prophets.  Philosophers  were  not  lacking 
who,  wearied  with  the  endless  speculations  of  Pythagorean 
and  Platonic  mysticism,  sought  relief  in  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel,  and  perverted  the  simplicity  of  its  teaching  by  inter- 
weaving with  it  the  subtle  philosophy  of  the  schools,  and 
who,  intoxicated  with  the  result,  plunged  either  into  the 
grossest  animalism  or  the  most  rigorous  asceticism.  Such 
were  Julian  Cassianus,  Marcion  the  founder  of  the  Marcion- 
ites,  Yalentinus  the  leader  of  the  Valentinians,  Tatianus  the 
heresiarch  of  the  Encratitians,  and  the  unknown  authors  of  a 
crowd  of  sects  which,  under  the  names  of  Abstinentes,  Apotac- 
tici,  Excalceati,  &c,  practised  various  forms  of  mortification, 


PROHIBITION   OF    SECOND    MARRIAGES. 


35 


and  denounced  marriage  as  a  deadly  sin.1  Such,  on  the  other 
hand,  were  Prodicus,  who  seems  to  have  originated  the  mystic 
libertinism  of  the  Gnostics;  Marcus,  whose  followers,  the 
Marcosians,  were  accused  of  advocating  the  most  disgusting 
practices ;  Basilides,  who  honored  the  passions  as  emanating 
from  the  Creator,  and  taught  that  their  impulses  were  to  be 
followed;  such,  too,  perhaps,  were  the  Kicolites,  to  whom  I 
have  already  referred. 

The  church  was  too  pure  to  be  seduced  by  the  latter:  the 
time  had  not  yet  come  for  the  former ;  and  men  who  in  the 
thirteenth  century  would  have  founded  powerful  orders  and 
have  been  reverenced  by  the  Christian  world  as  new  incarna- 
tions of  Christ  were,  through  their  anachronism,  stigmatized 
as  heretics,  and  expelled  from  the  communion  of  the  faithful. 
Still,  their  religious  fervor  and  rigorous  virtue  had  a  gradu- 
ally increasing  influence  on  the  practice,  if  not  on  the  acknow- 
ledged dogmas,  of  the  church.2 

The  first  manifestation  of  this  is  to  be  seen  in  the  opinions 
entertained  with  regard  to  second  marriages.  The  extract 
made  above  from  Athenagoras  shows  that  many  orthodox 
Christians  looked  upon  such  unions  as  adulterous,  and  though 
this  opinion  was  branded  by  the  church  as  a  heresy  when  it 
was  elevated  into  an  article  of  belief  by  the  Montanists  and 
Cathari,  or  Puritans,  and  though  even  the  piety  and  fervor  of 
Tertullian  could  not  save  him  from  excommunication  when 
he  embraced  the  obnoxious  doctrine,  yet  it  had  already  found 
its  way  into  the  discipline  of  the  priesthood,  and  had  drawn 
the  first  line  of  separation  between  the  clergy  and  the  laity. 
At  a  period  of  early  though  uncertain  date,  the  rule  became 


1  So  widely  spread  had  these  doc- 
trines become  by  the  close  of  the 
second  century  that  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria devotes  the  third  book  of  his 
Stromata  to  their  discussion  and  refuta- 
tion. It  is  not  worth  while  to  examine 
their  peculiarities  minutely  here.  The 
curious  reader  will  find  all  that  he  is 
likely  to  want  concerning  them  in 
Clement,  in  Epiphanius,  and  in  Phi- 
lastrius,  without  plunging  further  into 
the  vast  sea  of  controversial  patristic 
theology. 


2  Thus,  towards  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  Dionysius  of  Corinth 
reproves  Pinytus,  Bishop  of  Gnosus, 
for  endeavoring  to  enforce  the  prac- 
tice of  celibacy  among  his  flock.  "  In 
qua  (epistola)  commonet  et  depreca- 
tur  episcopum  eorum  Pinytum,  ne 
gravia  onera  discipulorum  cervicibus 
superponat,  ne  ve  fratribus  necessi- 
tatem  compulsse  castitatis  indicat,  in 
quo  nonnullorum  periclitetur  infirmi- 
tas."— Rufin.  Hist.  Eccles.  Euseb.  L. 
iv.  c.  23. 


36 


ASCETICISM. 


firmly  and  irrevocably  established  that  no  "digamus"  or  hus- 
band of  a  second  wife  was  admissible  to  holy  orders ;  and 
though,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing 
that  marriage  after  taking  orders  was  prohibited  to  a  bache- 
lor, it  was  strictly  forbidden  to  a  widower.  Tertullian,  in  his 
efforts  to  extend  the  principle  of  monogamy  to  the  whole 
Christian  body,  assures  us  in  unmistakable  terms  that  the 
entire  structure  of  the  church  was  based  upon  the  single 
marriages  of  its  ministers.1  Indeed,  the  rites  of  the  church 
were  in  time  considered  so  incompatible  with  a  second  mar- 
riage that  the  Council  of  Elvira,  in  305,  while  admitting  that 
a  layman  might,  in  cases  of  extreme  necessity,  administer 
baptism,  is  careful  to  specify  that  he  must  not  be  a  digamus.2 
The  introduction  of  this  entering- wedge  is  easily  explicable, 
for  it  had  apparent  warrant  in  Apostolic  precepts.  St.  Paul 
had  specified  the  condition  of  being  the  husband  of  one  wife 
— "unius  uxoris  vir" — as  a  prerequisite  to  the  priesthood  or 
episcopate,3  and  the  temper  of  the  times  was  such  as  to  take 
this  in  its  literal  sense,  rather  than  to  adopt  the  more  rational 
view  that  it  was  intended  to  exclude  those  among  the  Gentiles 
who  indulged  in  the  prevalent  system  of  concubinage,  or  who 
ajnong  the  Jews  had  fallen  into  the  sin  of  polygamy.4 


1  Qualis  es  id  niatrimonium  (se- 
cundum) postulans,  quod  eis  a  quibus 
postulas  non  licet  habere,  ab  episcopo 
raonogarao,  a  presbytero  et  diaconis 
ejusdem  sacramenti  ?  .  .  .  Quomodo 
toturn  ordinem  ecclesia  de  monogamis 
disponit,  si  non  hsec  disciplina  prse- 
cidit  in  laicis,  ex  quibus  ecclesise  ordo 
proficit  ? — De  Monog.  c.  11. — It  was 
evidently  easier  to  pronounce  Tertul- 
lian a  heretic  than  to  confute  his  logic. 

How  rapid  was  the  progress  of  asceti- 
cism, and  how  nearly  the  Montanist 
doctrines  escaped  becoming  the  re- 
ceived faith  of  the  church,  is  shown 
by  can.  7  of  the  Council  of  Neocesarea 
in  314,  which  forbade  priests  from 
honoring  with  their  presence  the  fes- 
tivities of  second  marriages  "  cum 
poenitentia  bigamus  egeat."  So  in 
352  the  Council  of  Laodicea  devoted 
its  first  canon  to  the  subject,  grudg- 
ingly permitting  those  who  openly  and 
legitimately  married  a  second  time  to 


be  only  restored  to  communion  "  juxta 
indulgentiam,"  after  a  certain  period 
devoted  to  fasting  and  prayer — a  prin- 
ciple repeated  by  innumerable  coun- 
cils during  the  succeeding  centuries. 
And  yet  we  learn  by  can.  8  of  the 
Council  of  Nicsea  that  Cathari  who 
refused  to  join  in  communion  with 
digami  were  considered  as  heretics. 
Even  as  late  as  484  we  find  in  an 
epistle  of  St.  Grelasius  an  exhortation 
that  second  marriages  are  not  to  be 
refused  to  laymen — "  Quod  secunda 
conjugia  saecularibus  non  negentur." 
— Gelasii  PP.  I.  Epist.  ix.  Rubr.  ad 
Cap.  xxii. 

2  Concil.  Eliberit.  can.  xxxviii. 

3  I.  Tim.  in.  2.— Tit.  i.  6. 

4  In  the  Mosaic  dispensation  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  the  plurality 
of  wives  (Deuteron.  xxi.  15)  which 
was  common  in  all  periods  of  Jewish 


RESTRICTIONS   ON    SACERDOTAL    MARRIAGE.       37 


When  once  this  principle  was  fairly  established,  and  when 
at  the  same  time  the  efforts  of  the  Montanists  to  render  the 
rale  binding  on  the  whole  body  of  Christian  believers  had 
failed,  a  distinction  was  established  between  the  clergy  and 
the  laity,  as  regards  the  marriage  tie,  which  gave  to  the 
former  an  affectation  of  sanctity,  and  which  was  readily 
capable  of  indefinite  extension.  It  is  therefore  not  difficult 
to  comprehend  how  they  soon  were  subjected  to  a  revival  of 
the  old  Levitical  rule  which  enjoined  on  the  priesthood  to 
marry  none  but  virgins,1  and  thus  we  reach  the  condition  of 


history.  Its  continuance  is  shown  by 
the  reproaches  of  Justin  Martyr  in  his 
"  Dialogus  cum  Tryphone  adversus 
Judreos" — "  Satius  est  vos  Deura  sequi 
quam  indoctos  et  csecos  magistros  ves- 
tros,  qui  ad  hoc  tempus  et  quatuor  et 
quinque  uxores  unumquemque  ves- 
trum  habere  patiuntur."  .  .  .  "Nam 
si  concederetur  ut  quam  quisque  velit 
quotque  ei  libeat  uxores  acceperet,  id 
quod  faciunt  generis  vestri  homines, 
qui  quemcunque  in  locum  veniant  aut 
mittantur,  nuptiarum  nomine  uxores 
ducunt,  multo  magis  id  Davidi  con- 
cessum  erat."  (Mag.  Biblioth.  Patrum. 
II.  36-7.)  In  393  Theodosius  the  Great 
endeavored  to  put  an  end  to  it — "  Nemo 
Judseorum  morem  suum  in  conjunc- 
tionibus  retineat,  nee  juxta  legem 
suam  nuptias  sortiatur,  nee  in  diversa 
sub  uno  tempore  conjugia  conveniat," 
(Const.  7  Cod.  Lib.  n.  Tit.  ix.,)  the 
preservation  of  which  law  by  Justinian 
nearly  a  century  and  a  half  later 
shows  that  the  necessity  for  the  re- 
striction still  existed — although  it  is 
observable  that  it  is*  omitted  in  the 
Theodosian  code.  So,  also,  in  some 
ancient  Arabic  canons,  passing  under 
the  name  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea. 
"  Nulli  Christianorum  duas  habere 
uxores  licet  vel  plures  simul  genti- 
lium  more,  qui  tres  et  quatuor  simul 
ducunt.  .  .  .  Hac  autem  lege  onines 
obligantur  Christiani,  sive  laici  sint 
sive  sacerdotes,  presbyteri,  diaconi, 
principes,  reges  et  imperatores."  (De- 
cret.  ex  quatuor  Regum  libris,  can.  v. 
— Harduin.  Concil.  I.  511.) 

This  explanation  of  St.  Paul's  in- 
structions is  adopted  by  Theophylact. 
"  Id   vero  Judseorum   causa   dicebat, 


illis  enim  permittebatur  polygamia, 
hoc  est  cum  multis  connubia  jungere. " 
(Comment,  in  I.  Epist.  ad  Tirnoth.) 
And  it  would  appear  to  be  the  opinion 
advanced  in  a  tract  of  uncertain  date, 
attributed  by  some  authorities  to  St. 
Cyprian  or  St.  Augustine,  which  para- 
phrases the  text  thus — "  non  plures 
habens  uxores  quam  unam."  (De  xn. 
Abusionibus  Seculae  cap.  x. — Opp.  St. 
Cypriani,  Mantiss.  p.  49,  Oxon.  1682.) 
The  same  view  was  indorsed  by  the 
Church  of  Geneva,  in  1563,  in  their 
response  to  certain  queries  of  the  Hu- 
guenot Synod  of  Lyons  (Cap.  xxi. 
Art.  x.  apud  Quick,  Synodicon  in  Gall. 
Reform.  I.  49). 

The  manner  in  which  this  text 
is  alluded  to  in  the  Apostolic  Consti- 
tutions would  seem  to  indicate  a  belief 
that  it  rendered  an  unmarried  man 
ineligible  to  the  episcopate.  "  Talem 
vere  oportet  esse  episcopum  qui  sit 
unius  vir  uxoris,  qui  quidem  semel 
nupserit  bene  suae  domui  prsesideat 
...  si  sit  honestus,  fidelis,  modera- 
tus,  si  uxorem  honestam  habeat  vel 
habuerit ;  si  Alios  religiose  educatos, 
etc."  (Const.  Apost.  Lib.  n.  c.  ii.)  It 
will  be  observed  that  the  unmarried 
man  is  not  alluded  to  as  a  possible 
candidate. 

1  Levit.  xxi.  13-14. — It  took  long  to 
enforce  this  rule  in  practice,  though 
in  theory  it  was  early  established. 
In  414  we  find  Innocent  I.  complaining 
that  men  who  had  taken  widows  to 
wife  were  even  elevated  to  the  episco- 
pate (Innocent  I.  Epist.  xxn  cap.  1), 
and  it  forms  the  subject  of  several  of 

;  the  epistles  of  Leo  I.  (Harduin.  Concil. 

I  I.  1767,  1772,  etc.). 


38 


ASCETICISM 


ecclesiastical  discipline  at  the  close  of  the  third  century,  as 
clearly  denned  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  and  Canons. 

Meanwhile,  public  opinion  had  moved  faster  than  the  can- 
ons. Ascetic  sects  multiplied  and  increased,  and  the  highest 
authorities  in  the  church  could  not  always  resist  the  conta- 
gion. The  melancholy  example  of  the  self-sacrifice  of  Origen 
shows  how  absorbing  was  the  struggle  and  how  intense  was 
the  conviction  that  nature  must  be  conquered  at  all  hazards, 
whatever  means  might  be  found  necessary  for  that  object. 
Nor  was  Origen  alone,  for  an  obscene  sect  under  the  name  of 
Valesians  undertook  to  follow  his  example,  and  to  procure 
proselytes  by  force  among  those  unhappy  enough  to  fall  into 
their  hands  j1  while,  in  the  canons  of  the  succeeding  century, 
the  repeated  prohibition  of  the  practice  of  self-mutilation 
shows  how  difficult  it  was  to  eradicate  the  belief  that  such 
immolation  was  an  acceptable  offering  to  a  beneficent  Creator.2 
Indeed,  Sextus  Philosophus,  an  ascetic  author  of  the  third 
century,  whose  writings  long  passed  current  under  the  name 
Pope  Sixtus  II.,  did  not  hesitate  to  openly  advocate  the  prac- 


1  Epiphan.  Panar.  Hseres.  lviii. 
Epiplianius  however  admits  his  igno- 
rance of  the  locality  and  date  of  the 
Valesii.  Their  customs  were  founded 
upon  the  text  "  Si  scandalizaverit  te 
ullum  ex  membris  tuis,  abscinde  abs 
te."— Matt,  xviii.  8. 

2  Can.  Apostol.  xxn.  xxm.  xxiv. — 
Concil.  Nicaen.  c.  i.— Concil.  Arelatens. 
II.  ann.  452,  c.  vii.  &c.  At  the  close 
of  the  12th  century,  the  canons  were 
relaxed  by  Clement  III.  in  favor  of  a 
priest  of  Ravenna  whose  ascetic  ardor 
had  led  him  to  follow  the  example  of 
Origen,  and  who  was  permitted  to  re- 
tain all  the  functions  of  the  priest- 
hood, except  the  ministry  of  the  altar 
(Can.  iv.  Extra,  i.  xx.).  Even  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  Ambrosio  Morales, 
a  Spanish  Dominican,  took  the  same 
effectual  means  to  extinguish  his  pas- 
sions ;  expelled  from  his  order  in  con- 
sequence, as  commanded  by  the  can- 
ons, he  devoted  himself  to  literature, 
and  died  in  1590,  at  the  age  of  60, 
while  professor  of  eloquence  in  the  | 
University  of  Alcala  (De  Thou,  Lib.  I 


xcix.).  The  delusion,  indeed,  has  per- 
petuated itself  to  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, in  a  Russian  sect  near  Toula. 
Catharine  II.  and  her  successors  en- 
deavored in  vain  to  repress  it,  and  in 
1818  Alexander  I.  ordered  the  banish- 
ment of  the  enthusiasts  to  Siberia, 
but  the  ardor  with  which  they  courted 
martyrdom  rendered  their  zeal  dan- 
gerously contagious,  and  the  wiser 
plan  was  adopted  of  leaving  them  in 
1  obscurity  (Pluqp.et,  Diet,  des  Here- 
sies, s.  v.  Mutiles  deRussie).  A  recent 
traveller  describes  them  under  the 
name  of  Skopsis,  as  a  large  tribe  in- 
habiting the  Caucasus,  where  they 
nourish  in  spite  of  the  most  energetic 
measures  of  repression  on  the  part  of 
the  Russian  government,  imprison- 
ment, banishment  to  Siberia,  conscrip- 
tion, and  even  the  punishment  of 
death  being  powerless  to  overcome 
the  influence  of  religious  fanaticism. — 
Brugsch,  Reise  der  Preussischen  Ge- 
sandschaft  nach  Persien,  1860  und 
1861  (London  Reader,  Jan.  3,  1863). 


IRREGULARITIES    OF    ASCETICISM.  39 

tice,1  and  though  his  arguments  were  regarded  as  heretical  by 
the  church,  they  were  at  least  as  logical  as  the  practical 
application  given  to  the  texts  commonly  quoted  in  support  of 
the  prohibition  of  marriage. 

Not  all,  however,  who  sought  the  praise  or  the  benefits  of 
austerity  were  prepared  to  pay  such  a  price  for  victory  in  the 
struggle  with  themselves.  Enthusiastic  spirits,  exalted  with 
the  prospect  of  heavenly  rewards  or  of  earthly  peace  pro- 
mised to  those  who  should  preserve  the  purity  of  virginity 
and  live  abstracted  from  household  cares  and  pleasures,  took 
the  vow  of  chastity  which  had  already  become  customary. 
This  vow,  however,  was  as  yet  purely  voluntary.  It  bound 
those  who  assumed  it  only  during  their  own  pleasure,2  and 
they  were,  during  its  continuance,  in  no  degree  segregated 
from  the  world.  So  untrammelled,  indeed,  were  their  actions, 
that  Cyprian  rebukes  the  holy  virgins  for  frequenting  the 
baths  in  which  both  sexes  indiscriminately  exposed  them- 
selves, and  he  does  not  hesitate  to  attribute  to  this  cause  much 
of  the  ruin  and  dishonor  of  its  votaries,  that  afflicted  the 
church.3  Yet  this  was  by  no  means  the  severest  trial  to  which 
they  subjected  their  constancy.  Some,  perhaps  to  court  spi- 
ritual martyrdom,  and  show  to  their  admirers  a  virtue  robust 
enough  to  pass  unscathed  the  most  fiery  trials — others,  per- 
haps finding  too  late  that  they  had  overtasked  their  strength, 
and  that  existence  was  a  burthen  without  the  society  of  some 
beloved  object,  associated  themselves  with  congenial  souls 
of  the  opposite  sex,  and  formed  Platonic  unions  in  which 


1  Omne  merabrura  corporis  quod  sidera  an  cum  vestita  es,  verecunda 
invitat  te  contra  pudicitiam  agere  ab-  sis  inter  viros,  talis,  cui  ad  inverecun- 
jiciendum  est.  Melius  est  uno  mem-  diam  proficit  audacia  nuditatis.  Sic 
bro  vivere  quam  cum  duobus  perire.  ergo  frequenter  Ecclesia  virgines  suas 
— Sexti  Philos.  Sent.  ix.  plangit,  sic  ad  infames  earum  ac  de- 

testabiles  fabulas  ingemiscit,  sic  flos 
virginum  extinguitur,  bonor  continen- 

ac 


2  Non  hoc  jubet  Dominus,  sed  hor- 


tatur :  nee  jugum  necessitatis  iraponit,  tife  ac       dor  Cffidit         loria  omnis 

quando  maneat  voluntatis  arbitnum     -,.      .,  *  e     „+      '      r«„ ,•„„ 

liberum.-Cyprian.  de  Habit.  Virgin.  cd;fltas    P'ofanatur.- Cyprian,    op. 

3  Spectaculumdelavacrofacis:  the-  That  such   laxity  of  conduct  was 

atro  sunt  foediora  quo  convenis  ;  vere-  permitted  to  professed  virgins  is  the 

cundia  illic  omnis  exuitur,  simul  cum  more  remarkable,  since  promiscuous 

amictu  vestis  honor  corporis  ac  pudor  bathing  was  prohibited  even  to  the 

ponitur,   denotanda   et    contrectanda  Christian  laity  by  the  Apostolic  Con- 

virginitas  revelatur.     Jam  nunc  con-  stitutions,  Lib.  i.  cap.  x. 


40 


ASCETICISM. 


they  aspired  to  maintain  the  purity  which  they  had  vowed  to 
God.  At  the  best,  the  sensible  members  of  the  church  were 
scandalized  by  these  irregularities,  which  gave  so  much  scope 
to  the  comments  of  unbelievers  ;  but  nature  not  unfrequently 
asserted  her  outraged  rights  to  the  shame  and  confusion  of  the 
hapless  votaries  of  an  artificial  and  superhuman  perfection. 
Tertullian  does  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  the  desire  of  enjoy- 
ing the  reputation  of  virginity  led  to  much  secret  immorality, 
the  effects  of  which  were  concealed  by  frequent  resort  to  in- 
fanticide.1 Cyprian  chronicles,  not  with  surprise,  but  sorrow, 
the  numerous  instances  he  had  known  of  ruin  resulting  for 
those  who  had  so  fatally  miscalculated  their  power  of  resist- 
ing temptation;  with  honest  indignation  he  denounces  the 
ecclesiastics  who  abandoned  themselves  to  practices  which,  if 
not  absolutely  criminal,  were  brutally  degrading ;  and,  with 
a  degree  of  common  sense  hardly  to  be  expected  from  so  warm 
an  admirer  of  the  perfection  of  virginity,  he  advises  that 
those  whose  frailty  rendered  doubtful  the  strict  observance  of 
their  vows  should  return  to  the  world  and  satisfy  their  long- 
ings in  legitimate  marriage.2  This  prudent  consideration 
for  the  weakness  of  human  nature  was  shared  by  the  ecclesi- 
astical authorities.  In  the  order  of  widows  professed,  which 
was  recognized  by  the  early  church,  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
enjoin  that  none  should  be  admitted  below  the  age  of  sixty, 
to  avoid  the  danger  of  their  infringing  their  vows  by  a  second 


1  Quanta  etiam  circa  uterum  aude- 
bit  ne  mater  detegatur !  Scit  Deus 
quot  jam  infantes  et  perfici  et  perduci 
ad  partnm  integros  duxerit,  debellatos 
aliquandiu  a  matribus.  Facillime  sem- 
per concipiunt  et  felicissime  pariunt 
lmjusmodi  virgines,  et  quidem  simil- 
limos  patribus. — Tertull.  de  Virgin. 
Veland.  c.  xv. 

2  Denique  quam  graves  multorum 
ruin  as  bine  fieri  vidimus,  et  per  hu jus- 
modi  illicitas  et  periculosas  conjunc- 
tiones  corrumpi  plurimas  virgines 
cum  summo  animi  nostri  dolore  con- 
spicimus.  ...  Si  autem  perseverare 
nolunt  vel  non  possunt,  melius  est  ut 
nubant  quam  in  ignem  delictis  suis 
cadant.  .  .  .  Certe,   ipsa    concubitus, 


ipse  complexus,  ipsa  confabulatio  et 
osculatio,  et  conjacentium  duorum 
turpis  et  foeda  dormitio,  quantum  dede- 
coris  et  criminis  confitetur. — Cypriani 
Epist.  iv.  ad  Pomponium. 

Tbe  beresiarcb  Paul  of  Samosata 
affords  perhaps  tbe  best  known  ex- 
ample of  tbe  extent  to  wbicb  these 
practices  were  sometimes  carried,  and 
the  good  fathers  of  the  Council  of 
Antioch,  who  condemned  him,  la- 
mented the  general  prevalence  of  the 
vice  thence  arising. — "  Neque  illud 
ignoramus  quot  ex  ejusmodi  mulie- 
rum  contubernio  partim  in  praeceps 
lapsi  aint,  partim  in  suspicionem  vene- 
rint." — Concil.  Antioch.  (Uarduin. 
Concil.  I.  198.) 


MANICHEISM.  41 

marriage ;  but  the  writer  is  careful  to  add  that  such  a  marriage 
is  not  to  be  condemned  for  itself,  but  only  on  account  of  the 
falsehood  which  it  occasioned.1  In  all  these  vows,  therefore, 
there  was  evidently  nothing  irrevocable. 

A  fresh  stimulus  to  asceticism  was  found  in  the  neo-platonic 
philosophy  which  arose  at  the  close  of  the  second  century. 
Ammonius  Sacca,  its  founder,  himself  is  said  to  have  been  a 
Christian,  and  his  two  most  noted  disciples,  Origen  and  Plo- 
tinus,  fairly  illustrate  the  influence  which  his  doctrines  had 
upon  both  the  Christian  and  pagan  world.  Although,  under 
Porphyry,  neo-platonism  became  the  avowed  antagonist  of 
Christianity,  there  was  much  in  its  elevated  mysticism  which 
was  captivating  to  the  fervor  of  proselytes  ;  and  the  asceticism 
which  it  inculcated  may  fairly  be  assumed  as  inflaming  the 
emulation  of  those  who  were  already  predisposed  to  regard  the 
mortification  of  the  flesh  as  a  means  of  raising  the  spirit  to  God. 

While  the  Christian  world  was  thus  agitated  with  the 
speculative  doctrines  and  practical  observances  of  so  many 
sects  which  seemed  to  regard  the  relations  between  the  sexes 
as  the  crucial  test  and  exponent  of  religious  ardor,2  a  new 
dogma  arose  in  the  East  and  advanced  with  a  rapidity  which 
shows  how  much  progress  the  spirit  of  asceticism  had  made, 
and  how  ripe  were  the  minds  of  unsettled  zealots  to  receive 


1  Constit.    Apost.    L.  n.    c.    i.,   ii.  2  The  calm  good  sense  of  Lactantius 

"  Bigamia   post   professionem  iniqua  shows  how  little  the  fervent  admira- 

habenda   est   non  propter  conjuncti-  tion  of  virginity  was  respected  by  the 

onem    sed    propter    mendacium." —  sober  portion  of  the  church — "  Sicut 

These  widows  and  virgins  were  sup-  enim  recte  ambularebonum  est,errare 

ported  out  of  the  tithes  of  the  church,  autem  malum,  sic  moveri  affectibus 

and  were  therefore  under  its  control,  in    rectum    bouum    est,    in    pravum, 

— Ibid.  viii.  xxxvi.  malum.     Nam  si  libido  extra  legiti- 

The  change  is  striking  by  the  end  mum    torum   non  evagetur,   licet  sit 

of  the  century,  when  widows  thus  in-  vehemens,  tamen  culpa  caret.       Sin 

fringing  their  vows  were  unrelentingly  vero  appetit  alienam,  licet  sit  medi- 

and   irrevocably  condemned — "dam-  ocris,  vitium  tamen  maximum  est." — 

nationem   habebunt,  quoniam   fidem  Instit.   Divin.   Lib.    vi.    c.   xvi. — See 

castitatis,    quam     Domino   voverunt,  also    cap.    xxiii.   'devoted    especially 

irritam  facere  ansae  sunt.     Tales  ergo  to  the  relations  between  the    sexes, 

person®  sine  Christianorum  commu-  Had  celibacy  at  this  time  been  en- 

nione  maneant  quae  etiam  nee  in  con-  joined  on  the  clergy,  he  could  scarcely 

vivio  cum  Christianis  communicent."  have  avoided  alluding  to  it. 

— Statut.  Eccles.  Antiq.  can.  civ.  i 


42  ASCETICISM. 

whatever  theory  seemed  to  trample  most  ruthlessly  upon 
nature,  and  to  render  the  path  of  salvation  inaccessible  to  all 
save  those  capable  of  the  profoundest  self-mortification. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  third  century,  the  Persian  Manes 
made  his  advent  in  the  Empire,  annonncing  himself  as  the 
Paraclet  and  as  a  new  and  higher  Apostle.  Though,  his 
career  as  an  envoy  of  Christ  was  cut  short  by  Archelaus  at 
the  colloquy  of  Cascar,  and  though  his  head  shortly  after- 
wards paid  the  debt  of  Sapor's  vengeance,  his  disciples  were 
more  successful,  and  the  hateful  name  of  Manichean  soon 
acquired  a  sinister  notoriety  which  kept  its  significance  for  a 
thousand  years.  Perhaps  the  doctrine  of  Dualism,  borrowed 
from  the  Ormouzd  and  Ahriman  of  the  Magi,  had  an  attraction 
when  grafted  on  the  simplicity  of  Christianity;  perhaps  the 
Platonic  notion  of  the  identity  of  the  soul  with  its  Creator 
recommended  it  to  the  followers  of  the  schools ;  certainly  his 
Brahminical  and  Buddhist  views  with  respect  to  the  use  of 
meat  and  horror  of  marriage  won  for  him  numberless  adherents 
among  the  relics  of  the  Yalentinians,  Encratitians,  Abstinentes, 
Cathari,  and  other  similar  sects,  and  struck  an  answering 
chord  among  those  of  the  orthodox  who  were  yielding  to  the 
gradually  increasing  influence  of  asceticism.  The  fierce  tem- 
poral persecution  of  the  still  Pagan  emperors,  and  the  una- 
vailing anathemas  of  the  church,  as  yet  confined  to  spiritual 
censures,  seemed  only  to  give  new  impetus  to  the  proselyting 
energy  of  the  Elect,  and  to  scatter  the  seed  more  widely 
among  the  faithful.  After  this  period  we  hear  but  little  of 
the  earlier  ascetic  heresies ;  the  system  of  Manes,  as  moulded 
by  his  followers,  was  so  much  more  complete  that  it  swallowed 
up  its  prototypes  and  rivals,  and  concentrated  upon  itself  the 
vindictiveness  of  a  combined  church  and  state.  So  thorough 
was  this  identification  that  in  381  a  law  of  Theodosius  the 
Great  directed  against  the  Manicheans  assumes  that  the  sects 
of  Encratitas,  Apotactitas,  Hydroparastatae,  and  Saccofori  were 
merely  nominal  disguises  adopted  to  avoid  detection.1 

Though  the  church   might  not  be  willing  to   adopt  the 
Manichean  doctrine  that   man's   body  is   the  work  of  the 


1  Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  v.  1.  7.— Cf.  Coucil.  Quinisext.  c.  95. 


RIVALRY   WITH    HERETICS.  43 

Demon,  and  that  the  soul  as  partaking  of  the  substance  of 
God  was  engaged  in  an  eternal  war  with  it,  and  should  abuse 
and  mortify  it  on  principle,1  yet  the  general  tendency  of  re- 
ligious enthusiasm  to  asceticism  made  the  practical  result 
common  to  all,  and  there  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  the 
spreading  belief  in  Manes  exercised  a  powerful  influence  in 
accelerating  the  progress  of  orthodox  sacerdotalism.  The 
fact  that  the  church  as  yet  was  itself  persecuted,  and  had  no 
power  of  imposing  its  peculiarities  on  others,  bound  it  to  the 
necessity  of  maintaining  its  character  for  superior  sanctity 
and  virtue,  and  ardent  believers  could  not  afford  to  let  them- 
selves be  outdone  by  heretics  in  the  austerities  which  were 
popularly  received  as  the  conclusive  evidence  of  religious 
conviction.  We  may  therefore  reasonably  imagine  a  rivalry 
in  asceticism,  which,  however  unconscious,  may  yet  have 
powerfully  stimulated  the  stern  and  unbending  souls  of  such 
men  as  St.  Anthony,  Malchus,  and  Hilarion,  even  as  Ter- 
tullian,  after  combating  the  errors  of  Montanus,  adopted  and 
exaggerated  his  ascetic  heresies.  How  narrowly,  indeed,  the 
church  in  process  of  time  escaped  from  adopting  practically, 
if  not  theoretically,  the  Manichean  views  respecting  marriage, 
and  how  thoroughly  it  became  interpenetrated  with  the 
Manichean  spirit,  is  clearly  demonstrated  by  the  writings  of 
the  orthodox  Fathers,  who  in  their  extravagant  admiration 
for  virginity  could  not  escape  from  decrying  matrimony.  It 
was  stigmatized  as  the  means  of  transmitting  original  sin,  a 
condition  which  necessarily  entailed  sin  on  its  participants, 
and  one  which  at  best  could  only  call  for  mercy  and  pardon, 
and  be  allowable  only  on  sufferance.  It  is  therefore  not  sur- 
prising if  those  who  were  not  prepared  to  undergo  the  priva- 
tions thus  enjoined  as  the  duty  of  all  Christians  should 
habitually  stigmatize  the  mortifications  of  their  self-denying 
brethren  as  Manicheism  in  spirit  if  not  in  name.2     The  com- 


1  Epiphan.  Panar.  Hseres.  lxvi. —  I  the  worldly  and  dissolute  sheltered 
The  same  doctrine  was  held  by  the  ;  themselves  behind  the  same  excuse, 
Patricians,  according  to  Philastrius,  and  reproached  the  ardent  zealots — 
P.  in.  No.  15.  "  Et   quam  viderit   pallentem   atque 

,  ,     .    .         ,.  _,,  tristem   miseram  et  Manichaeam  vo- 

Jovmian    it   seems    did  not  neg-    ^      Et  oonsequenter  tali  enim  pro- 
tect this  ready  means  of  attack  (Hie- !        Uo  jejunium  hffiresis  e8t>„  (Epist< 
ron.  adv.  Jovin.  Lib.  i.  c.  3),  nor  was    ^   ^  JEustoch.  c#  5<) 
he  alone,  for  Jerome  complains  that  I 


44 


ASCETICISM. 


parison  indeed  became  striking  when  the  Christians  and  the 
heretics  both  adopted  the  system  of  restricting  their  sacred 
class  from  the  pleasures  of  the  world,  when  the  Manichean 
Elect,  who  remained  unmarried  and  fasted  on  vegetable  food, 
were  equivalent  to  the  priesthood,  while  the  Auditors,  to 
whom  a  larger  liberty  was  allowed,  represented  the  orthodox 
laity.1  It  is  by  no  means  improbable,  indeed,  that  the  tenets 
of  the  Manicheans  have  been  exaggerated  by  their  opponents, 
and  that  in  process  of  time,  as  the  church  became  avowedly 
ascetic,  ther,e  was  little  practical  difference  on  this  point 
between  Manicheism  and  orthodoxy.2 

Thus  even  as  early  as  the  time  of  Cyprian,  the  comparative 
merits  of  martyrdom  and  virginity  were  rated  as  one  hundred 
to  sixty  ;3  while,  after  martyrdom  had  gone  out  of  fashion, 
St.  Patrick,  in  the  fifth  century,  gives  us  a  more  elaborate 
classification,  under  which  bishops  and  doctors  of  the  church, 
monks  and  virgins  were  rated  at  one  hundred ;  ecclesiastics 
in  general  and  widows  professed  at  sixty,  while  the  faithful 
laity  only  stand  at  thirty.4      It  was  therefore  a  heresy  for 


1  Augustin.  Epist.  lxxiv.  ad  Deu- 
terium. 

2  St.  Augustine  represents  Faus- 
tus  as  arguing  that  both  in  doctrine 
and  practice  his  sect  only  followed 
the  example  of  the  Church.  Thus 
Faustus  ridicules  the  idea  that  they 
could  prohibit  marriage,  and  asserts 
positively  that  they  only  encour- 
aged those  who  manifested  a  de- 
sire to  persevere  in  continence — "  Et 
tamen  hoc  nobis  primo  respondeatis 
velim,  utrum  omnino  virgines  facere 
doctrina  sit  dsemoniorum,  an  solum 
per  prohibitionem  facere  nubendi  ? 
Si  per  prohibitionem.  nihil  ad  nos  : 
nam  et  ipsi  tarn  stultum  judicamus 
inhibere  volentem,  quam  nefas  et 
impium  satis  nolentem  cogere.  Si 
vero  favere  huic  quoque  proposito 
et  non  reluctari  volenti,  id  quoque 
doctrinam  putatis  esse  dsemoniorum, 
taceo  nunc  vestrum  periculum  .... 
Quapropter  et  nos  hortamur  quidem 
volentes  ut  permaneant,  non  tamen 
cogimus  invitas  ut  accedant.  No- 
vimus  enim  quantum  voluntas,  quan- 
tum et  naturae  ipsius  vis  etiarn  contra 


legem  publicam  valeat,  nedum  ad- 
versus  privatam,  cui  respondere  sit 
liberum,  Nolo.  Si  igitur  hoc  modo 
virgines  facere  sine  crimine  est,  extra 
culpam  sumus  et  nos :  sin  quoquo 
genere  virgines  facere  crimen  est,  rei 
estis  et  vos.  Jam  qua  mente  aut 
consilio  hoc  adversum  nos  capitulum 
proferatis,  ego  non  video. " — Augustin. 
contra  Faustum  Manichseum  Lib. 
xxx.  c.  iv. 

If  this  is  to  be  received  as  an 
authentic  exposition  of  Manichean 
principles,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
church  was  not  long  in  outstripping 
the  heretics. 

3  Primus  enim  centenarius  mar- 
tyrum  fructus  est,  secundus  sexage- 
narius  vester  est. — Cyprian,  de  Habit. 
Virgin. 

4  Centesimum  episcopi  et  doctores 
qui  omnibus  omnia  sunt,  sexagesi- 
mum  clerici  et  vidua?  qui  continentes 
sunt,  tricesimum  laici  qui  fideles  sunt, 
qui  perfecte  Trinitatem  credunt  .  .  . 
Monachos  vero  et  virgines  cum  cente- 
simis  jungimus. — Synod.  II.  S.  Patric. 
can.  xviii. 


RIVALRY    WITH    HERETICS.  45 

Jovinian  to  -claim  equal  merit  for  maids,  wives,  and  widows ; 
and  though  St.  Jerome,  in  controverting  this,  commenced  by 
carefully  denying  any  intentional  disrespect  to  marriage,  still 
his  ardor  carried  him  so  far  in  that  direction  that  he  aroused 
considerable  feeling  among  reasonable  men,  and  he  was 
obliged  formally  and  repeatedly  to  excuse  himself.1  St. 
Augustine  recognized  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  current 
doctrines  of  his  time  with  the  necessities  of  humanity  when 
he  wrote  a  treatise  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  difference 
between  the  good  of  marriage  and  the  evil  of  carnal  desire, 
which,  while  it  perpetuated  the  species,  likewise  perpetuated 
original  sin.2  St.  Martin  of  Tours  was  less  circumspect  when 
he  was  only  willing  to  admit  that  marriage  was  pardonable, 
while  licentiousness  was  punishable,  and  virginity  glorious  ;3 
and  even  he  was  far  behind  the  enthusiasts  of  his  time,  for 
while  he  deplores  the  miserable  folly  of  those  who  consider 
marriage  to  be  equal  to  virginity,  he  is  likewise  obliged  to 
reprove  the  error  of  those  who  were  only  willing  to  compare 
it  to  lechery — the  former  belief  being  evidently  much  more 
extravagant  than  the  latter,  in  the  Saint's  estimation.4  So  a 
treatise  on  chastity,  which  passes  under  the  name  of  Sixtus 
III.,  barely  admits  that  married  people  can  earn  eternal  life, 
though  the  glory  of  heaven  is  not  for  them ;  and  apparently 
it  is  only  the  dread  of  being  classed  with  the  Manicheans  that 
leads  the  author  to  shrink  from  the  conclusions  of  his  own 
reasoning,  and  to  state  that  he  does  not  absolutely  condemn 
matrimony  or  prohibit  those  from  marriage  who  cannot  re- 
strain themselves.5  Not  a  little  Manicheean  in  its  tendency  is 
a  declaration  of  Gregory  the  Great  to  Augustine  the  Apostle 


1  Hieron.  adv.  Jovin.  Lib.  i.  o.  2. —  I      4  Ibid.  —  Ita   et    illi    qui    conjugia 

Epist.  l.  li.  LII.  fornicationi    comparant,    vehementer 

,  T   .      ,.     .  ..       ,     .       ,.,.      .  errant;  et  illi  qui  coniugia  virginitati 

«  Intentio  igitur  hujus  libri  est  .  .  .  ,  da  ^stilJallt>  ^rf  pe*itus  et 

ut   carnahs    concupiscentiae    malum,      . *.  .         .  r 


propter  quod  homo  qui  per  earn  nas- 
citur  trahit  originale  peccatum,  dis- 
cernamus  a  bonitate  nuptiarum. — 
Augustin.  de  coucupisc.  etdenuptiis. 


5  Quid  ergo,  damnavit  Deus  nup- 
tias  ?  absit.  Sed  tantum  regni  gloriam 
illis,  non  vitam,  si  tamen  omnia  man- 


»  ~  ,.        ,      -,  .         '  data  servare  poterint,  denegasse  cen- 

A  Coniugium  pertmeat  ad  vemam,  i  Af       ,  °  .■ 

setur  .   .   ■ 

nee  inconti 

—  (Mag.    E 

652,  (558.) 


"  coniugium  perinieat  aa  veniam,  <  -^        ,  .- 

.     .   .J   °         x  *      j      i     •  e      I      setur  .   .   f     Non  damnamus   nuptias 

Virginitaa    spectet   ad  gloriam    form-    nec  incontinentes  nubere  prohibemus. 
oatio  deputetur  ad  pcenam.-Sulpic.  ;  /  p    „ 

Sever.  Dial.  n. 


46  ASCETICISM. 

of  England  ;l  and  Epiphanins  hardly  seems  to  realize  the 
practical  Manicheism  of  his  declaration  that  the  church  is 
based  upon  virginity  as  upon  its  corner  stone.3  How  keenly 
the  more  moderate  section  of  the  church  at  times  felt  the 
danger  to  which  she  was  exposed  by  this  intemperate  ascetic 
zeal,  and  how  narrow  was  the  path  which  she  had  to  trace 
between  orthodoxy  and  heresy,  is  shown  by  some  items  of 
the  examination  to  which  all  bishops- elect  were  subjected  by 
the  fourth  Council  of  Carthage  in  398.  Among  other  points 
of  faith,  inquiry  was  to  be  made  whether  they  disapprove  of 
marriage,  or  condemn  second  marriages,  or  prohibit  the  use 
of  meat.3  It  shows  how  readily  Manicheism  and  Catharism 
might  lurk  in  the  asceticism  of  the  most  devout. 

These  tendencies,  however,  were  not  of  sudden  develop- 
ment. Fully  a  hundred  years  were  required  for  their  formal 
recognition  and  adoption  by  the  church,  and  at  the  close  of 
the  third  century  ecclesiastical  authorities  still  condemned 
the  ruthless  asceticism  which  was  subsequently  glorified  as 
the  highest  effort  of  Christian  virtue.  Thus,  in  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions,  the  influence  of  Manicheism  and  its  kindred 
sects  was  as  yet  only  shown  by  the  opposition  aroused  to 
their  doctrines;  and  the  necessity  of  that  opposition  was 
manifested  by  the  careful  and  repeated  declaration  of  the 
purity  and  sanctity  of  the  marriage-tie,  both  as  regards  the 
priesthood  and  the  laity.4  Not  less  instructive  is  the  bare 
toleration  almost  grudgingly  extended  to  vows  of  celibacy, 
and  the  cautious  restriction  which  declared  that  such  vows 
are  not  to  be  held  as  justifying  a  disparagement  of  matri- 


1  Quia  voluptas  ipsa  esse  sine  culpa  are  to  be  found  in  cap.  11,  14,  and  26 
nullatenus  potest.— Gregor.  I.  Regist.  of  the  same  book.  These  are  appa- 
Lib.  xi.  Epist.  lxiv.  Respons.  10.  j  rently  intended  for  the  laity,  but  the 

2  Fundamenta  igitur  et  velut  ere-  I  di^ct  bearing  of  the  following  on  the 
pido  qu*dam  in  ecclesia  yirginitas  Pn?f.th^  is  undeniable.  '•  Nam  nee 
est.-Epiphan.  Exposit.  Fid.  Cathol.      le8ltim»s  eoncubitus,  nee  cubile,  nee 

*  sanguinis  fluxus,  nee   nocturna  pol- 

3  Cone.  Carthag.  IV.  c.  1.  I  lutio  potest  hominis  naturam  contami- 

*  »Nnpti»  igitur  honest*  et  com-  T'^ ^T  M^1  "frtf 
mendabiles  sunt,  ipsaque  liberorum  I  Sola  ^P1^  et  actl°  "M****"  (Lib. 
procreatio  pura  est;  nihil  enim  mali  I  TJ'  %. 27)"  .. A  comparison  of  this  with 
inest  in  bono"  (Lib.  vi.  c.  28).     Simi-    2*  disgusting  details  of  the  Peniten 

i  ,.  '  T.lfllK   nt    Slir'fPpHitio'    arras   mcilroa   mani 


lar  expressions   directed  against  the 


tials  of  succeeding  ages  makes  mani- 


Manichean  tendencies  of  the  period  !  *es*  h°7  c+omPlete,  "**  the  revolution 

r  I  in  the  doctrines  of  the  church. 


INNOVATIONS   IN    THE   WEST.  47 

mony.1  Equally  suggestive  are  the  Apostolic  Canons.  The 
sixth  of  these,  as  has  been  already  shown,  pronounces  deposi- 
tion on  the  bishop  or  priest  who  separates  himself  from  his 
wife  under  pretence  of  religion;  while  the  fiftieth  threatens 
equally  rigorous  punishment  on  the  clerk  or  layman  who 
shall  abstain  from  marriage,  from  wine,  or  from  meat,  not 
for  the  purpose  of  devoting  himself  to  piety,  but  on  account 
of  holding  them  in  abomination,  such  belief  being  a  slander 
ou  the  goodness  of  God,  and  a  calumny  on  the  perfection  of 
his  works.2 

The  tide,  however,  had  fairly  set  in,  and  these  barriers  were 
too  feeble  to  restrain  the  swelling  current.  The  influences 
which  were  now  so  powerfully  at  work  could  not  manifestly 
be  applied  to  the  whole  body  of  believers,  as  they  could  only 
result  in  gradual  extinction  or  in  lawless  licentiousness;  but 
as  the  ecclesiastical  body  was  perpetuated  by  a  kind  of 
spiritual  generation,  it  could,  without  hazarding  a  decrease 
of  numbers,  be  subjected  to  regulations  which  should  render 
obligatory  the  asceticism  which  as  yet  had  been  optional. 
The  attempt  to  effect  this  was  not  long  wanting.  About  the 
year  305  the  Spanish  council  of  Elvira  proclaimed  in  the 
most  decided  manner  that  all  concerned  in  the  ministry  of 
the  altar  should  practise  entire  abstinence  from  their  wives, 
under  pain  of  forfeiting  their  positions.    It  further  endeavored 


1  "  De  virginitate  prseceptum  non  I  tionem :  oblitus  quod  omnia  pulehra 
accepimns,  volentium  autem  potestati  valde,  et  quod  masculum  et  foeminam 
id  rernittimus,  tanquam  votum"  (Lib.  j  Deus  creavit  hominem,  sed  ditfama- 
iv.  c.  14).  "Virgo  non  ordinatur ;  '  tionibus  lacessens  creationem  Dei  vo- 
mandatum  enim  Domini  non  babe-  j  cat  ad  calumniam  ;  aut  corrigitor  aut 
mus  :  propositi  enim  est  hoc  certamen,  :  deponitor,  et  ex  ecclesiarejicitor.  Con- 
non  ad  vituperationem  nuptiarum,  sed  i  similiter  et  laicus  (Canon  l.).  •  This 
ad  exercitium  pietatis"  (Lib.  vin.  c.  j  canon  was  omitted  by  Dionysius  Exi- 
30).  No  stronger  contrast  can  be  asked  j  guus,  but  was  subsequently  admitted 
than  that  which  a  little  more  than  a  '  by  the  church,  notwithstanding  that 
century  produced  between  the  calm  j  it  proves  in  the  clearest  manner  the 
and  sensible  piety  of  the  Constitutions,  full  enjoyment  of  marriage  by  the 
and  the  extravagant  rhapsodies  of  Je-  |  clergy  of  all  grades.  The  sixth  canon 
rome,  Augustine,  and  Martin.  j  (numbered  fifth  in  the  full  collection), 

,  _.  . ,         which  prohibits  the  separation  of  ec- 

«  Si  quis  episcopus,  aut  presbyter,  ;  olesiasficB  from  their  wives  was  like. 
aut  diaconus,  aut  quivis  ommno  do  j  .  not  rejected  although  in  the 
sacerdotah  consortio,  nuptiis  et  carni-  j  ei  hteenth  c'entury  Cabassut  stigma- 
bus  et  vino  abstmuerit:  non  propterea  . *  it  ag  heretical-"  vero-similiter 
quo  mens  ad  cultum  pietatis  reddatur  fuU  olim  ab  ha3reticis  vel  schismaticis 
exercitatior,    sed    propter    abomma-  I  POnfpCtus  " 


48 


ASCETICISM. 


to  put  a  stop  to  the  scandals  of  the  Agapetse,  or  female  com- 
panions, which  the  rigor  of  this  canon  was  so  well  fitted  to 
increase,  by  decreeing  that  no  clerk  should  permit  any  woman 
to  dwell  with  him,  except  a  sister  or  a  daughter,  and  even 
these  only  when  bound  by  vows  of  virginity.1  This  was 
simply  the  legislation  of  a  local  synod,  and  its  canons  were 
not  entitled  to  respect  or  obedience  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
churches  directly  represented.  Its  action  may  not  improbably 
be  attributed  to  the  commanding  influence  of  one  of  its  lead- 
ing members,  Osius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  and  that  action  had 
no  result  in  inducing  the  church  at  large  to  adopt  the  inno- 
vation. Some  ten  years  later  were  held  the  more  important 
councils  of  Ancyra  and  Neocsesarea,  which  serve  to  fix  for 
us  the  discipline  of  the  period,  at  least  in  the  East.  By  the 
former  we  learn  that  marriage  in  orders  was  still  permitted 
as  far  as  the  diaconate,  provided  the  postulant  at  the  time 
of  ordination  declared  his  desire  to  enjoy  the  privilege,  and 
asserted  his  inability  to  remain  single.  This  is  even  less 
stringent  than  the  rule  quoted  above  from  the  Apostolic  Con- 
stitutions, proving  incontestably  that  there  was  no  thought  of 
imposing  restrictions  on  the  intercourse  between  the  married 
clergy  and  their  wives.2  By  the  council  of  Neocsesarea  it 
was  provided  that  a  priest  marrying  in  orders  should  be 


1  Placuit  in  totnm  prohibere  epis- 
copis,  presbyteris  et  diaconibus  vel 
omnibus  clericis  positis  in  ministerio 
abstineue  se  a  conjugibus  suis  et  non 
generare  filios :  quicumque  vero  fecerit, 
ab  bonore  clericatus  exterrninetur. — 
Concil.  Eliberitan.  can.  33. 

Episcopus  vel  quilibet  alius  clericus 
aut  sororera  aut  iiliaui  virginem  dica- 
tam  Deo  tantum  secum  liabeat :  ex- 
traneam  nequaquam  babere  placuit. 
—Ibid.  can.  27. 

There  is  a  canon  attributed  to  the 
first  council  of  Aries,  held  in  314, 
which,  if  genuine,  marks  the  exten- 
sion of  the  principle  eastward — "  Prae- 
terea,  quod  dignum,  pudicum  et  ho- 
nestum  est,  suademus  fratribus,  ut 
sacerdotes  et  levitse  cum  uxoribus 
suis  non  coeant,  quia  ministerio  quoti- 
diano  occupantur.  Quicumque  contra 
banc  constitutionem  fecerit,  a  clerica- 


I  tus  honore  deponatur"  (Concil.  Arela- 
|  tens.  I.  can.  29) — but  as  it  is  con- 
tained in  but  one  MS.,  Mansi  supposes 
it  to  probably  belong  to  some  subse- 
quent and  forgotten  synod.  It  is 
almost  identical  with  Concil.  Telensis 
can.  9,  ann.  386,  and,  whatever  be  its 
date,  its  phraseology  evidently  indi- 
cates that  it  records  the  first  introduc- 
tion of  the  restriction  in  its  locality. 

2  Diaconi  quicumque  ordinantur,  si 
in  ipsa  ordinatione  protestati  sunt  et 
dixerunt  velle  se  in  conjugio  copulari, 
quia  sic  manere  non  possunt :  hi  si 
postmodum  uxores  duxerint,  in  min- 
isterio maneant,  propterea  quod  eis 
episcopus  licentiam  dederit.  Qui- 
cumque sane  tacuerunt,  et  su'scepe- 
runt  manus  impositionem,  professi 
continentiam,  et  postea  nuptiis  obli- 
gati  sunt,  a  ministerio  cessare  debe- 
bunt. — Concil.  Ancyran.  can.  9. 


CONSERVATISM    OF    THE    EAST.  49 

deposed,  but  a  heavier  punishment  was  reserved  for  those 
guilty  of  what  was  then  considered  the  greater  sin  of  licen- 
tiousness. That  no  interference  was  intended  by  this  with 
the  relations  existing  between  the  married  clergy  and  their 
wives  is  shown  by  another  canon  depriving  of  his  functions 
any  priest  who  submitted  to  the  commission  of  adultery  by 
his  wife  without  separating  himself  from  her — being  a  prac- 
tical extension  of  the  Levitical  rule,  now  by  common  consent 
adopted  as  a  portion  of  ecclesiastical  discipline.1 


1  Presbyter  si  uxorem  acceperit  ab    riage  is  a  far  worse  crime  than  mere 
ordine  deponatur.     Si  vero  fornicatus    irregularities,  however  scandalous, 
fuerit   aut  adulterium    perpetraverit,        Si  vero  post  ordinationem  adulterata 
amplius  pelli  debet  et  ad  pcenitentiam    fuerit,  dimittere  earn  convenit.    Quod 
redigi.— Concil.  Neocaesar.  can.  1.         j  si  cum   ilia  convixerit,  ministerium 

This  is  precisely  the  reverse  of  the  |  sibi  commissum  obtinere  non  poterit. 
doctrine  of  later  periods,  in  which  mar- 1  — Ibid.  can.  8. 


III. 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^EA. 

Thus  far  the  church  had  grown  and  strengthened  without 
any  recognized  head  or  acknowledged  legislative  power. 
Each  patriarch  or  metropolitan,  surrounded  by  his  provincial 
synod,  established  regulations  for  his  own  region,  with  no 
standard  but  the  canon  of  Scripture,  being  responsible  only  to 
the  opinion  of  his  compeers,  who  might  refuse  to  receive  his 
clergy  to  communion.  Under  this  democratic  autonomy  the 
church  had  outlived  persecution,  had  repudiated  and  cast  out 
innumerable  successive  heresies,  and,  thanks  to  external  pres- 
sure, had  managed  to  preserve  its  unity.  The  time,  however, 
had  now  come  for  a  different  order  of  things.  Constantine, 
following  the  dictates  of  his  unerring  political  sagacity,  allied 
himself  with  the  Christians,  professed  conversion,  and  Chris- 
tianity, powerful  even  when  merely  existing  on  sufferance, 
became  the  religion  of  the  state.  As  such,  the  maintenance 
of  its  unity  was  a  political  necessity,  to  accomplish  which 
requifed  some  central  power  entitled  to  general  respect  and 
implicit  obedience.  The  subtle  disputations  concerning  the 
fast-spreading  Arian  heresy  were  not  likely  to  be  stilled  by 
the  mere  ipse  dixit  of  any  of  the  Apostolic  Sees,  nor  by  the 
secular  wisdom  of  crown  lawyers  and  philosophic  courtiers. 
A  legislative  tribunal  which  should  be  at  once  a  court  of  last 
appeal,  and  a  senate  empowered  to  enact  laws  of  binding  force, 
as  the  final  decisions  of  the  Church  Universal,  was  not  an 
unpromising  suggestion.  Such  an  assemblage  had  hitherto 
been  impossible,  for  the  distances  to  be  traversed  and  the 
expenses  of  the  journey  would  have  precluded  an  attendance 
sufficiently  numerous  to  earn  the  title  of  (Ecumenic ;  but  an 
imperial  rescript  which  put  the  governmental  machinery  of 


MEANING    OF    THE    NICENE    CANON.  51 

posts  at  the  service  of  the  prelates  could  smooth  all  difficul- 
ties, and  enable  every  diocese  to  send  its  representative.  In 
the  year  325,  therefore,  the  Fiest  General  Council  as- 
sembled at  Nicasa.  With  the  fruitlessness  of  its  endeavor^  to 
extinguish  the  Arian  controversy  we  have  nothing  to  do,  but 
in  its  legislative  capacity  its  labors  had  an  influence  upon  our 
subject  which  merits  a  closer  examination  than  would  appear 
necessary  from  the  seemingly  unimportant  nature  of  the  pro- 
ceedings themselves. 

With  the  full  belief  that  the  canons  of  a  general  council 
were  the  direct  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  were  of 
course  entitled  to  unquestioning  reverence,  and  those  of  Nicsea 
have  always  been  regarded  as  of  special  and  peculiar  autho- 
rity, cutting  off  all  debate  on  any  question  to  which  they 
might  be  applicable.  The  third  of  the  series  has  been  the 
main  reliance  of  sacerdotal  controversialists,  and  has  been 
constantly  appealed  to  as  the  unanswerable  justification  for 
enforcing  the  rule  of  discipline  which  enjoined  celibacy  on  all 
admitted  to  holy  orders.  Its  simple  phraseology  would 
hardly  seem  to  warrant  such  conclusion.  "The  Great  Synod 
has  strictly  forbidden  to  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon,  and  to 
every  ecclesiastic,  to  have  a  '  subintroductam  mulierem,' 
unless  perhaps  a  mother,  a  sister,  an  aunt,  or  such  person 
only  as  may  be  above  suspicion."1 

This  is  the  only  allusion  to  the  subject  in  the  Nicene  canons. 
As  it  does  not  include  wives  among  those  exempted  from  the 
prohibition  of  residence,  we  can  hardly  be  surprised  that 
those  who  believe  celibacy  to  be  of  apostolic  origin  should 
assume  that  it  was  intended  to  pronounce  an  absolute  separa- 
tion between  husband  and  wife.  As  the  Council  of  Elvira, 
however,  contains  the  only  enunciation  of  such  a  rule  pre- 


1  I  give  the  version  of  Dionysius  I  nons  specially  limits  the  prohibition 
Exiguus.  "  Interdixit  per  omnia  magna  !  to  bishops,  and  to  unmarried  priests 
sy nodus,  non  episcopo,non  presbytero,  and  deacons.—"  Decernimus  ut  epis- 
non  diacono,  nee  alicui  omnino  qui  in  copinonhabitentcummulieribus.  .  .  . 
clero  est,  licere  subintroductam  ha-  .  Idem  decermtur  de  omni  sacerdote 
bere  mulierem  ;  nisi  forte  matrem,  ccelibe,  idemque  de  diaconis  qui  sine 
aut  sororem,  aut  amitam,vel  eas  tan- I  uxore  sunt."  (Harduin.  Concil.  I. 
turn  personas  quae  suspiciones  effugi- |  463.)— This  expresses  exactly  the 
unt-"  |  discipline  of  the  Greek  church. 

An  Arabic  version  of  the  Nicene  ca-  ; 


52  THE    COUNCIL   OF    NICEA. 

vious  to  that  of  Nioeea ;  as  those  of  Ancyra  and  Neocaesarea 
and  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  and  Canons,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, allow  the  conjugal  relations  of  ecclesiastics  to  remain 
undisturbed,  we  are  certainly  justified  in  assuming  the  impos- 
sibility that  an  innovation  of  so  much  importance  would  be 
introduced  in  the  discipline  of  the  universal  church  without 
being  specifically  designated  and  commanded  in  terms  which 
would  admit  of  no  misunderstanding.  That  the  meaning  of 
the  canon  is  really  and  simply  that  alone  which  appears  on 
the  surface — to  put  an  end  to  the  disorders  and  scandals 
arising  from  the  improper  female  companions  of  unmarried 
priests— is,  moreover,  I  think,  susceptible  of  easy  demonstra- 
tion. 

The  term  "  subintroducta  mulier" — ywrj  awsteaxto^ — is  al- 
most invariably  used  in  an  unfavorable  sense,  and  is  equiva- 
lent to  the  "foemina  extranea,"  and  nearly  to  the  "focaria" 
and  "concubina"  of  later  times,  as  well  as  to  the  "agapeta" 
and  "  dilecta"  of  earlier  date.  We  have  already  seen  how 
Cyprian,  seventy-five  years  before,  denounced  the  agapetas 
who  even  then  were  so  common,  and  whose  companionship 
proved  so  disastrous  to  all  parties,  but  the  custom  continued, 
and  its  evil  consequences  became  more  and  more  openly  and 
shamelessly  displayed.  In  314  the  council  of  Ancyra  de- 
nounced it  in  terms  implying  its  public  recognition.1  At  the 
close  of  the  same  century,  Jerome  still  finds  in  it  ample 
material  for  his  fiery  indignation ;  and  his  denunciations  mani- 
fest that  it  was  still  a  corroding  cancer  in  the  purity  of  the 
church,  prevailing  to  an  extent  that  rendered  its  suppression 
a  matter  of  the  utmost  importance.2  The  testimony  of  Epi- 
phanius  is  almost  equally  strong,  and  shows  that  it  was  a 


1  Virgines  an  tern  quae  conveniunt 
cum  aliquibus,  tanquam  sorores,  ba- 
bitare  probibemus.  —  Concil.  Ancy- 
rens.  can.  18. 


saepe  tenentur  et  lectulo  :  et  suspicio- 

sos  nos  vocant  si  aliquid  extimeinus. 

Frater  sororem  virginem  deserit,  coeli- 

bum  spernit  virgo  gennaimin,  fratrem 

quaerit  extraneum  :  et  cum  in  eodem 
8  Pudet  dicere,  proli  nefas      tnste  i  x  ..  ,      ,  , 

1    *  X.    ,  i     •        proposito  esse  se    simulent,  quaerunt 


sed   verum    est.     Unde   in    ecclesias 


alienorum  spintale  solatium,  ut  domi 
Aerapetarum  pestis  mtroiit  ?  unde  sine    ,    ,        ,  ,  /-&   •  *. 

8  {••       i-    j  ■  a  .  i  habeantcarnalecommerciuin.   (Epist. 


nuptiis  aliud  nomen  uxorum  ?  immo 


unde   novum    concubinarum    genus  ? 


?  i  xxn.  ad  Eustoch.  c.  5.)     It  sbould  be 


observed    tbat    celibacy  bad  become 


Plusinferam.     Unde  meretnce*  nm-    ft     ru]e  of  the     b     ^  at  tbe  time 
viraa  ?    eadem    domo,   uno    cubiculo,  |  when  Jerome  wrQte  tlmg> 


MEANING    OF    THE    NICENE    CANON.  53 

source  of  general  popular  reproach.'  Such  a  reform  was 
therefore  well  worthy  the  attention  of  the  Nicene  fathers,  and 
that  this  was  the  special  object  of  the  canon  is  indicated  by 
Jerome  himself,  who  appeals  to  it  as  the  authority  under  which 
an  ecclesiastic  refusing  to  separate  himself  from  his  agapeta 
could  be  punished.2 

That  it  had  no  bearing  upon  the  wives  of  priests  can 
moreover  be  proved  by  several  reasons.  The  restriction  on 
matrimony  has  never  at  any  time  extended  below  the  sub- 
diaconate,  the  inferior  grades  of  the  secular  clergy  having 
always  been  free  to  live  with  their  wives,  even  in  the  periods 
of  the  most  rigid  asceticism.  The  canon,  however,  makes  no 
distinction.  Its  commands  are  applicable  "alicui  omnino  qui 
in  clero  estv"     To  suppose  therefore  that  it  was  intended  to 

include  wives  in  its  restriction  is   to  prove  too  much the 

reductio  ad  absurdum  is  complete.3  Equally  convincing  is 
the  fact  that  when,  towards  the  close  of  the  century,  the  rule 
of  celibacy  and  separation  was  introduced,  and  Siricius  and 
Innocent  I.  ransacked  the  Gospels  for  texts  of  more  than 
doubtful  application  with  which  to  support  the  innovation, 
they  made  no  reference  whatever  to  the  Nicene  canon.4  Had 
it  been  understood  at  that  period  as  bearing  on  the  subject, 
it  would  have  been  all-sufficient  in  itself.  The  reverence  felt 
for  the  Council  of  Nicaea  was  too  great,  and  the  absolute 
obedience  claimed  for  its  commands  was  too  willingly  ren- 
dered, for  such  an  omission  to  be  possible.  That  Siricius 
and  Innocent  should  not  have  adduced  it  is  therefore  proof 
incontrovertible   that   it  was   as   yet    construed  as  directed 


1  Accusant  nimirum  eos  qui  in  ec-  3  When,  during  the  demoralization 
clesia  dilectas  appellatas,  aliunde  in-  of  the  tenth  century,  the  council  of 
troductas  ac  cohabitantes  foeininas  Augsburg  made  a  spasmodic  effort  to 
habent.— Panar.  Hares,  lxiii.                 i  revive  the  neglected  rule  of  celibacy, 

2  Quod  si  post  monita  nostra  aliquis11/11^0/^^0  inclu?e  the  lower 
clericus  agapetaa  amplius  quasierit  ord,erT?  of  the  cler/£  wlthl»  lts  SC0Pe' 
amare  quam  Christum,  secundum  sy-  and  Ratram™s  of  Corvey  did  not  fail 
nodalem  reguUm  conveniatur  •  et  to  point  out  that  sudl  was  the  in" 
pracepta  patrum  in  Nic»a  defmita  ei  convertible  meaning  of  the  Nicene 
legantur.  Jam  vero  si  conventus  fa-  cau0II'  whlch.  f t  Hiat  tlme  was  uni" 
gerit  pradicta  et  reliquerit,  consecuti  versa11^  considered  to  refer  to  mar- 
sumus  maximum  lucrum.     Alioquin  naSe- 

si  neglexerit,  talis  ab  ecclesia  Christi  4  Siricii  Epist.  2.— Innocent,  ad  Vic- 

anathematizandus    est.  —  Epist.    ad  tricium,  ad  Exuperium,  &e. 
Oceanum  de  Vit.  Clei' 


IG. 


54 


THE    COUNCIL    OF    NICE  A. 


solely  against  the  improper  companions  of  the  clergy.  If 
further  evidence  to  the  same  effect  be  required,  it  may  be 
found  in  a  law  of  Honorius,  promulgated  in  420,  in  which, 
while  forbidding  the  clergy  to  keep  "  mulieres  extranet" 
under  the  name  of  "sorores,"  and  permitting  only  mothers, 
daughters,  and  sisters,  he  adds  that  the  desire  for  chastity 
does  not  prohibit  the  residence  of  wives  whose  merits  have 
assisted  in  rendering  their  husbands  worthy  of  the  priesthood.1 
The  object  of  the  law  is  evidently  to  give  practical  force  and 
effect  to  the  Nicene  canon,  and  the  imperial  power  under 
Honorius  had  sunk  to  too  low  an  ebb  for  us  to  imagine  the 
possibility  of  his  venturing  to  tamper  with  and  vitiate  the 
decrees  of  the  most  venerable  council. 

If  the  proof  thus  adduced  be  as  convincing  as  it  appears  to 
me,  the  story  of  Paphnutius  is  not  so  important  as  to  deserve 
the  amount  of  controversy  that  has  been  expended  upon  it, 
and  a  brief  reference  is  all  that  seems  necessary.  Socrates 
and  Sozomen  relate  that  while  the  canons  of  the  council  were 
under  consideration,  some  of  the  fathers  desired  to  introduce 
one  interdicting  all  intercourse  between  those  in  orders  and 
their  wives.  "Whereupon  Paphnutius,  an  Egyptian  bishop, 
protested  against  the  heavy  burden  to  be  thus  imposed  upon 
the  clergy,  quoting  the  well-known  declaration  of  St.  Paul  to 
the  Hebrews  respecting  the  purity  of  the  marriage-bed.  The 
influence  of  St.  Paphnutius  was  great,  for  he  was  a  confessor 
of  peculiar  sanctity ;  his  sightless  eyes  bore  testimony  to  the 
severity  of  the  persecutions  which  he  had  endured,  and  his 
immaculate  chastity,  preserved  from  boyhood  in  a  monastery, 
rendered  his  motives  and  his  impartiality  on  the  subject  un- 
impeachable. The  bishops,  who  had  been  on  the  point  of 
accepting  the  proposed  canon,  were  convinced,  and  the  project 
was  abandoned.2 


1  Illas  etiam  non  relinqui  castitatis 
hortatur  adfectio,  quse  ante  sacerdo- 
tium  maritorum  legitimum  meruere 
conjugium.  Neque  enim  clericis  in- 
competenter  adjuncts  sunt,  quse  dig- 
nos  sacerdotio  viros  sui  conversatione 
fecerunt. — Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit. 
ii.  I.  44. 

2  "  Visum  erat  episcopis  legem  no- 


vam  in  ecclesiam  introducer© ;  ut  qui 

essent  sacris  initiati  (sicut  episcopi, 
presbyteri  et  diaconi)  cum  uxoribus 
quas  cum  erant  laici,in  matrimonium 
duxissent,minimedormirent."  Papb- 
nutius  protested  "  honorabile  esse  con- 
jugium inter  omnes  et  thorum  imma- 
culatum:  videndum  nenimisexquisita 
praescriptione  ecclesiam  gravi  incom- 


STORY   OF    PAPHNUTIUS.  55 

If  this  account  be  true,  it  of  course  follows  that  the  third 
canon  has  no  bearing  on  the  wives  of  ecclesiastics,  and  that 
the  enforcement  of  celibacy  dates  from  a  later  period  than 
that  of  the  council.  Accordingly,  when  the  Xicene  canon 
was  found  necessary  to  support  the  antiquity  of  the  rule,  it 
became  requisite  to  discredit  the  story  of  Paphnutius.  The 
first  attempt  to  do  this,  which  has  come  under  my  observa- 
tion, occurred  during  the  fierce  contentions  aroused  by  the 
efforts  of  Gregory  VII.  to  restore  the  almost  forgotten  law  of 
celibacy.  Bernald  of  Constance  has  left  a  record  of  a  dis- 
cussion held  by  him  in  1076  with  Alboin,  a  zealous  defender 
of  sacerdotal  marriage,  in  which  the  authenticity  of  the  story 
is  hotly  contested.1  Bernald's  logic  may  be  condensed  into 
the  declaration  that  he  considered  it  much  more  credible  that 
Sozomen  was  in  error  than  that  so  holy  a  man  as  St.  Paph- 
nutius could  have  been  guilty  of  such  a  blasphemy.  No 
reason  whatever  was  vouchsafed  when  Gregory  VII.  caused 
the  story  to  be  condemned  in  the  Synod  of  Rome  of  1079.2 
Later  writers,  from  Bellarmine  down,  have,  however,  entered 
into  elaborate  arguments  to  prove  its  impossibility.  They 
rest  their  case  principally  on  the  assertion  of  the  existence  of 
celibacy  as  a  rule  anterior  to  the  council,  and  on  its  enforce- 
ment afterwards;  on  the  fact  that  Socrates  and  Sozomen 
flourished  a  little  more  than  a  century  after  the  council,  and 
that  they  are  therefore  untrustworthy;  and  that  the  name  of 
St.  Paphnutius  does  not  appear  in  the  acts  of  the  council. 
To  the  first  of  these  objections  the  preceding  pages  afford,  I 
think,  a  sufficient  answer ;  to  the  second  it  can  only  be  replied 
that  we  must  be  content  with  the  best  testimony  attainable, 
and  that  there  is  none  better  than  that  of  the  two  historians, 
whose  general  truthfulness  and  candor  are  acknowledged  ;3 
and  to  the  third  it  may  be  remarked  that  of  the  318  bishops 


modo  afficerent"  (Soerat.  Hist.  Eecles.  [  3  Sed  pr?e  cseteris  omnibus  Socrates 
Lib.  i.e.  8). — The  account  of  Sozomen  et  Sozomenus  ac  Theodoritus  totius 
(Hist.  Eecles.  Lib.  i.  c.  22)  is  to  the  antiquitatis  judicio  celebrati  sunt,  qui 
same  effect,  though  less  in  detail.  ab  iis   temporibus   exorsi,  in  quibus 

■  Bernald.  Altercat.  de  Incont.  Sa-  !  *™e\iu*  scnbend|  fin«m  fecerat>  ad 
n  ,  iheodosn  j  unions  tempora  opus  suum 


2  Monumenta  Gregoriana   (Migne's 
Patrol.  T.  cxlviii.  p.  137^). 


perduxerunt. — H.  Valesii  Pra?fat. 


56  THE    COUNCIL    OF    NIC^EA. 

present,  but  222  affixed  their  signatures  to  the  acts,  while 
Kurmus  and  Theodoret  both  expressly  assert  that  he  was 
present.1  That  the  statement  was  not  discredited  until  con- 
troversialists found  their  account  in  so  doing,  is  shown 
by  its  retention  in  the  "Historia  Tripartita,"2  a  condensa- 
tion of  the  narratives  of  Socrates,  Sozomen,  and  Theodoret, 
-compiled  in  the  sixth  century  by  Cassiodorus,  whose  irre- 
proachable orthodoxy  would  hardly  have  permitted  him 
to  give  it  currency  if  it  had  then  been  considered  as  blas- 
phemous as  the  writers  of  the  eleventh  century  would  have 
as  believe.  In  the  absence  of  any  comment  or  negation  on 
his  part,  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  in  his  time  the 
story  was  not  considered  improbable. 

Various  indications  have  been  collected  by  controversialists 
to  show  that  for  some  time  after  the  council  of  Nicaea  no 
interference  was  attempted  with  married  priests.  Of  these, 
one  or  two  will  suffice. 

St.  Athanasius,  whose  orthodoxy  it  would  not  be  prudent 
for  any  one  to  question,  and  whose  appearance  during  his  dia- 
conate  at  the  council  of  Nicaaa  first  attracted  general  attention 
to  his  commanding  abilities,  has  left  us  convincing  testimony 
as  to  the  perfect  freedom  allowed  during  his  time  to  all  classes 
of  ecclesiastics.  An  Egyptian  monk  named  Dracontius  had 
been  elected  to  an  episcopate,  and  hesitated  to  accept  the  dig- 
nity lest  its  duties  should  prove  incompatible  with  the  fulfil- 
ment of  his  vows.  To  remove  these  scruples,  Athanasius 
addressed  him  an  epistle  containing  various  arguments,  among 
which  was  the  declaration  that  in  his  new  sphere  of  action  he 
would  find  no  difficulty  in  carrying  out  whatever  rules  he 


1  Aliis  dextri  poplites  succisi.  Ex  j  Gelasius  of  Cyzicum,  a  writer  of  the 
quorum  rmmero  fuit  Paplmutius  I  fifth  century,  in  his  history  of  the 
iEgyptus.      In    summo    cernere    illic  }  council  (Act.   Concil.  Nicsen.  Lib.  n. 


licebat  turbam  raartyrum  in  unum 
collectam. — Theodoret.  Hist.  Eccles. 
Lib.  i.  c.  7. 

So  also  Rufinus  (Hist.  Eccles.  Lib. 
x.  c.  4)  :   "  Fuit  prreterea  in  illo  con- 
cilio  et  Paplmutius  homo  Dei,  episco-  j  nutius 
pus  .ZEgypti  partibus,  confessor,  etc.,"        2  rj.  ,        m  .       .    T .,  10 

but  he  makes  no  allusion  to  the  inci-  j  Hlstor-  TnPart'  Llb'  u'  G'  13' 

dent  related  by  Socrates  and  Sozomen.  I 


cap.  xxxii),  relates,  without  any  ex- 
pression of  disapprobation  or  disbelief, 
the  story  of  the  attempt  to  separate  the 
wives  of  ecclesiastics,  and  its  failure 
on  account  of  the  opposition  of  Paph- 


GREGORY    OF    NAZIANZUM.  57 

might  prescribe  for  himself.  "  Many  bishops,"  said  the  Saint, 
"  have  not  contracted  matrimony,  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
monks  have  become  fathers.  Again,  we  see  bishops  who 
have  children,  and  monks  who  take  no  thought  of  having  pos- 
terity."1 The  tenor  of  the  whole  passage  is  such  as  to  show 
that  no  laws  had  yet  been  enacted  to  control  individual  action 
in  such  matters,  and  while  rigid  asceticism  was  largely  prac- 
tised, it  was  to  be  admired  as  the  result  of  private  conviction, 
and  not  as  mere  enforced  submission  to  an  established  rule. 

Testimony  equally  unequivocal  is  afforded  by  the  case  of 
St.  Gregory  Theologos,  Bishop  of  Nazianzum.  He  relates 
that  his  father,  who  was  likewise  a  St.  Gregory  Bishop  of 
Nazianzum,  was  converted  about  the  period  of  the  Nicene 
council,  and  shortly  afterwards  admitted  to  the  priesthood  and 
created  bishop.  His  mother,  St.  Nonna,  prayed  earnestly  for 
male  issue,  saw  her  future  son  St.  Gregory  in  a  prophetic 
vision,  and  devoted  him,  before  his  birth,  to  the  service  of  God. 
That  this  occurred  after  his  father's  admission  to  orders  is 
shown  by  the  address  which  he  represents  the  latter  as  mak- 
ing to  him,  "  I  have  passed  more  years  in  offering  the  sacri- 
fice than  measure  your  whole  life,"2  while  the  birth  of  a 
younger  son,  Caesarius,  shows  that  conjugal  relations  continued 
undisturbed.  St.  Gregory  evidently  felt  that  neither  shame 
nor  irregularity  attached  to  his  birth  during  the  sacred  minis- 
try of  his  father. 


1  No  vim  as  enim  et  episcopos  jeju-  oXo>cX>i;oy  ytvov;  ^  tvyxji.wra.$)  et  niona- 
nantes  et  monachos  comedentes  ;  no-  chos  generis  posteritatem  non  qusesi- 
vimus  et  episcopos  non  bibentes  vi-  \  visse,  animadvertas,  et  clericos  rur- 
nuui,  et  monachos  bibentes ;  novimus  .  sus  esuriisse,  et  monachos  jejunasse. 
quoque  episcopos  signa  facientes  et , — Epist.  ad  Dracontiuui. 
monachos  non  facientes.     Multi  quo- :  2  0j^  ^^ .  0 

que  ex  episcopis,  matnmonia  non  mi-  ,Q^  h^B  bwrlan  ifM)  „  0Vfif. 

erunt,  monachi  contra  parentes  libe- ;  Baronills  labor3  hard  t0  break  the 
rorum  facti  _  sunt  ;  quemadmodum  force  of  m&  agsertioilj  but  hig  argu. 
vicissim  episcopos  filiorum  patres  ■  mentg  geem  to  me  successfunv  con. 
(jr3xx«  h  t»»  'E7r^xo7r«v  elh  ytyafAnx**,  troverted  by  Calixtus.  (De  Conjug. 
r^VaXc.  h  vartfteWHyiynaw.  **>**> x*,  cleriCi  Ed>  1753  pp.  261-74.) 
Evia-Koirovs  TraTsprtj  rvntef  x.xi  fxcv^ou;  ff 


J,  I  II  li  A   ii 
UN  1  V  KUS  ITV    O* 

CALIFORNIA 


IV. 
LEGISLATION. 


Thus  far  the  progress  of  asceticism  had  been  the  result  of 
moral  influence  alone.  Those  who  saw  in  the  various  forms 
of  abstinence  and  mortification  the  only  path  to  salvation, 
and  those  who  may  have  felt  that  worldly  advantages  of 
power  or  reputation  would  compensate  them  for  the  self- 
inflicted  restrictions  which  they  underwent,  already  formed  a 
numerous  body  in  the  church,  but  as  yet  had  not  acquired  the 
numerical  ascendency  requisite  to  enable  them  to  impose  upon 
their  brethren  the  rules  which  they  had  adopted  for  their  own 
guidance.  The  period  was  one  of  transition,  and  for  sixty 
years  after  the  council  of  Nicasa  there  was  doubtless  a  struggle 
for  supremacy  not  perhaps  the  less  severe  because  at  this  late 
date  we  can  but  dimly  trace  its  outlines  amid  the  records  of 
the  fierce  Arian  controversy  which  constitutes  the  ecclesias- 
tical history  of  the  time,  and  which  absorbed  the  attention  of 
writers  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  everything  else. 

The  first  triumph  of  the  ascetic  party  was  in  establishing 
recognized  restrictions  on  those  who  had  voluntarily  assumed 
vows  of  celibacy.  With  them,  at  least,  the  case  was  clear. 
Aspiring  to  no  rank  in  the  church,  they  simply  dedicated 
themselves  to  God,  and  pledged  themselves  to  lives  of  absti- 
nence. Their  backsliding  caused  scandal  to  the  church,  which, 
if  it  were  held  responsible  in  the  eyes  of  men  for  their  con- 
duct, must  necessarily  assume  the  power  to  control  their 
mode  of  life,  while  the  fact  of  simply  holding  them  to  the 
performance  of  vows  solemnly  undertaken  could  not  reason- 
ably be  regarded  as  an  arbitrary  stretch  of  authority. 

Soon  after  his  conversion,  Constantine  had  encouraged  the 
prevailing  tendency  by  not  only  repealing  the  disabilities  im- 


DEGENERACY    OF    THE    CHURCH 


59 


posed  by  the  old  Eoman  law  on  those  who  remained  unmar- 
ried, but  by  extending, the  power  of  making  wills  to  minors 
who  professed  .the  intention  of  celibacy.1  His  piety  and  that 
of  subsequent  emperors  speedily  attributed  to  all  connected 
with  the  church  certain  exemptions  from  the  intolerable  muni- 
cipal burdens  which  were  eating  out  the  heart  of  the  empire. 
An  enormous  premium  was  thus  offered  to  swell  the  ranks  of 
the  ecclesiastics,  while,  as  the  number  of  the  officiating  clergy 
was  necessarily  limited,  the  influx  would  naturally  flow  into 
the  mass  of  monks  and  nuns  on  whose  increase  there  was  no 
restriction,  and  whose  condition  was  open  to  all,  with  but 
slender  examination  into  the  fitness  of  the  applicant.2  The 
rapidly  increasing  wealth  of  the  church,  and  the  large  sums 
devoted  to  the  maintenance  of  all  orders  of  the  clergy  offered 
additional  temptations  to  those  who  might  regard  the  life  of 
the  ascetic  as  the  means  of  securing  an  assured  existence  of 
idleness,  free  from  all  care  of  the  morrow.  If,  therefore,  dur- 
ing a  period  when  ridicule  and  persecution  were  the  portion 
of  those  who  vowed  perpetual  continence,  it  had  been  found 
impossible  to  avoid  the  most  deplorable  scandals,3  it  can  rea- 
dily be  conceived  that  allurements  such  as  these  would  crowd 
the  monastic  profession  with  proselytes  of  a  most  question- 
able character,  drawn  from  a  society  so  frightfully  dissolute  as 
that  of  the  fourth  century.4    The  necessity  of  subjecting  them 


1  Cassiod.  Hist.  Tripart.  Lib.  i.  c.  9. 

2  See  Lib.  xvr.  Cod.  Tbeod.  Tit.  ii.  11. 
9, 10, 1],  14,  etc.  This  evil  bad  become 
so  great  by  the  time  of  Valens  that  in 
365  that  emperor  declares  "  Quidam 
ignaviae  sectatores  desertis  civitatum 
muneribus,  captant  solitudines  ac  se- 
creta,  et  specie  religionis  csetibus  mo- 
nizonton  congregantur."  The  most 
vigorous  measures  were  requisite, 
"  erui  e  latebris  consulta  prseceptione 
mandavimus,"  and  he  orders  the  cul- 
prits to  be  subjected  agaiu  to  their 
municipal  duties  under  pain  of  for- 
feiture of  all  their  property.  (Lib.  xn. 
Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  i.  1.  63. )  In  376  the 
same  emperor  endeavored  to  enforce 
the  obligation  of  military  service  on 
the  crowds  of  vigorous  men  who  filled 
the  monasteries,  and  on  their  resist- 


ance a  persecution  arose  in  which 
many  were  killed. — Hieron.  Euseb. 
Chron.  ann.  378. 

3  The  lamentations  of  St.  Cyprian 
have  already  been  alluded  to.  In  305 
the  council  of  Elvira  found  it  neces- 
sary to  denounce  perpetual  excommu- 
nication against  the  "  virgines  sacratse" 
who  abandoned  themselves  to  a  life  of 
licentiousness,  while  those  guilty  only 
of  a  single  lapse  were  allowed  resto- 
ration to  communion  on  the  deathbed, 
if  earned  by  continual  penitence. 
(Concil.  Eliberit.  c.  13.) 

4  The  fierce  declamations  of  St.  Je- 
rome afford  a  terrible  picture  of  the 
disorders  prevalent  among  those  vow- 
ed to  celibacy,  and  of  the  hideous 
crimes  resorted  to  in  order  to  conceal 
or  remove  the  consequences  of  guilt. 


60  LEGISLATION. 

to  established  rales  must  therefore  have  soon  become  gene- 
rally recognized ;  and  although  a  passage  from  St.  Athanasius, 
quoted  above,  shows  that  they  were  free  at  any  time  to  aban- 
don the  profession  which  they  had  assumed,  still,  while  they 
remained  as  members,  the  welfare  of  the  church  would  render 
all  right-minded  men  eager  to  hail  any  attempt  to  establish 
rules  of  wholesome  discipline.  The  first  authoritative  attempt 
to  check  disorders  of  the  kind  is  to  be  found  in  the  first 
council  of  Carthage,  which  in  348  insisted  that  all  who,  shun- 
ning marriage,  elected  the  better  lot  of  chastity,  should  live 
separate  and  solitary,  and  that  none  should  have  access  to 
them  under  penalty  of  excommunication.1 

Although  the  church,  in  becoming  an  affair  of  state,  had  to 
a  great  extent  sacrificed  its  independence,  still  it  enjoyed  the 
countervailing  advantage  of  being  able  to  call  upon  the  tempo- 
ral power  for  assistance  when  its  own  authority  was  defied, 
nor  was  it  long  in  requiring  this  aid  in  the  enforcement  of  its 
regulations.  Accordingly,  in  364,  we  find  a  law  of  Jovian 
forbidding,  under  pain  of  actual  or  civil  death,  any  attempt 
to  marry  a  sacred  virgin,2  the  extreme  severity  of  which  is  the 
best  indication  of  the  condition  of  morals  that  could  justify 
a  resort  to  penalties  so  exaggerated.  How  great  was  the  neces- 
sity for  reform,  and  how  little  was  actually  accomplished  by 
these  attempts,  may  be  estimated  from  an  effort  of  the  Council 


The  period  is  but  little  later  than  that  !  de  seel  ere,  abortii  venena  meditantur, 
under  consideration,  and  the  descrip-  ,  et  frequenter  etiam  ipsse  commortuse, 
tion  is  no  doubt  fairly  applicable  to  ;  trium  criminura  rese,  ad  inferos  pro- 
file latter,  unless  we  assume  that  the  ducuntur,  homicidse  suse,  Christi  adul- 
asceticism  enforced  by  Siricius  had  j  terse,  necdum  nati  filii  parricidae." — 
made  matters  worse. — "  Piget  dicere  j  Hieron.  Epist.  xxir.  ad  Eustoeh.  c.  5. 
quot  quotidie  virgines  ruant,  quantas  It  was  doubtless  the  consideration 
de  suo  gremio  mater  perdat  ecclesia :  !  of  these  evils  that  induced  the  coun- 
super  qua?  sidera  inimicus  superbus  '  cil  of  Saragossa,  in  381,  to  forbid  vir- 
pouat  thronuin  suum  ;  quot  petras  ;  gins  from  taking  the  veil  unless  they 
excavet  et  habitet  coluber  in  foramini-  j  could  prove  themselves  to  be  upwards 
bus  earum.  Videas  plerasque  viduas  ,  of  forty  years  of  age. — Concil.  Csesar- 
antequam  nuptas,  infelicem  conscien-  !  august.  I.  c.  8. 
tiam  inutata  tantum  veste  protegere.  ,  «  ..  ~,  ,,  T  0 
Quas  nisi  tumor  uteri,  et  infantum  I  ConciL  Carthag.  I.  c.  3. 
prodiderit  vagitus,  sanctas  et  castas  |  2  Si  quis  non  dicam  rapere,  sed  vel 
se  esse  gloriantur,  et  erecta  cervice  et  I  adtemptare      matrimonii       jungendi 


ludentibus  pedibus  incedunt.  Alise 
vero  sterilitatem  prsebibunt,  et  necdum 
sati     hominis    homicidium     faciunt. 


causa,  sacratas  virgines  vel  invitas 
ausus  fuerit,  capitali  sententia  ferie- 
tur. — Lib.  ix.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit.  xxv. 


Nonnullse  cum  se  senserint  concepisse  |  1.  2. 


THE   COUNCIL   OF   GANGRA. 


61 


of  Valence,  in  374,  to  prolong  the  penance  incurred  by  those 
who  married,1  and  from  the  description  which  ten  years  later 
Pope  Siricius  gives  of  the  unbridled  and  shameless  license 
indulged  in  by  both  sexes  in  violation  of  their  monastic 
vows.2 

As  yet,  however,  these  efforts  were  confined  to  those  who 
had  bound  themselves  with  solemn  vows.  The  secular  clergy 
were  still  at  liberty  to  follow  the  dictates  of  their  own  con- 
sciences, and  if  an  attempt  was  made  to  erect  the  necessity  of 
ascetic  abstinence  into  an  article  of  either  faith  or  discipline, 
the  church  was  prompt  to  stamp  it  with  the  seal  of  unequi- 
vocal reprobation.  Eustathius,  Bishop  of  Sebastia,  in  Cappa- 
docia,  himself  the  son  of  Eulalius,  Bishop  of  Cappadocian 
Cassarea,  carried  his  zeal  for  purity  to  so  great  an  excess  that 
his  exaggerated  notions  of  the  inferiority  of  the  married  state 
trenched  closely  upon  Manicheism,  although  his  heretical 
rejection  of  canonical  fasting  showed  that  on  other  points  he 
was  bitterly  opposed  to  the  tenets  of  that  obnoxious  sect. 
His  horror  of  matrimony  went  so  far  as  to  lead  him  to  the 
dogma  that  married  people  were  incapable  of  salvation ;  he 
forbade  the  offering  of  prayer  in  houses  occupied  by  them ; 
and  he  declared  that  the  blessings  and  sacraments  of  priests 
living  with  their  wives  were  to  be  rejected,  and  their  persons 
treated  with  contempt.3 

There  were  not  wanting  those  to  whom  even  these  extreme 


1  De  puellis  vero  quse  se  Deo  vove- 
runt,  si  ad  terrenas  nuptias  sponte 
transierint,  id  custodiendum  esse 
decrevimus,  ut  poenitentia  his  nee  sta- 
tim  detur,  etc. — Concil.  Valent.  I.  aim. 
374,  can.  ii. 

2  Postea  vero  in  abruptum  conscien- 
tise  desperatione  producti,  de  illicitis 
complexibus  libere  filios  procreaverint, 
quod  et  publico  leg^s  et  ecclesiastica 
juracondemnant.—  Siricii  Epist.  I.  c.  6. 

3  Declaratum  est  enim  hos  eosdem 
nuptias  accusare  et  docere  quod  nul- 
lus  in  conjugali  positus  gradu  spem 
habeat  apud  Deum.  ...  In  domibus 
conjugatorum  nee  orationes  quidem 
debere  celebrari,  persuasissein  tantum 
ut  easdera  fieri  vetent.  .  .  .  Presbyteros 


vero  qui  matrimonia  contraxerunt 
sperni  debere  dicunt,  nee  sacramenta 
quae  ab  eis  conficiuntur,  attingi. — 
Concil.  Gangrens.  Prooem. 

So  also  Socrates — "  Benedictionem 
presbyteri  babentis  uxorem,  quam 
lege  cum  esset  laicus  duxisset,  tan- 
quam  scelus  declinandum  prrecepit. — 
Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  n.  c.  33. 

After  the  specific  condemnation  of 
this  latter  doctrine  by  the  undoubted- 
ly orthodox  council  of  Gangra,  it  is 
somewhat  remarkable  to  see  it  enun- 
ciated and  erected  into  a  law  of  the 
church  by  Gregory  VII.  in  his  inter- 
necine conflict  with  the  married 
priests.  Thus  the  heresy  of  one  age 
becomes  the  received  and  adopted 
faith  of  another. 


62  LEGISLATION". 

opinions  were  acceptable,  and  Eustathius  speedily  accumulated 
around  him  a  host  of  devotees  whose  proselyting  zeal  threat-* 
ened  a  stubborn  heresy.  The  excesses  attributed  to  their 
inability  to  endure  the  practical  operation  of  their  leader's 
doctrines  may  be  true,  or  may  be  merely  the  accusations 
which  are  customarily  disseminated  when  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  invest  schismatics  with  odium.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the 
orthodox  clergy  felt  the  importance  of  promptly  repressing 
opinions  which,  although  at  variance  with  the  creed  of  the 
church,  were  yet  dangerously  akin  to  the  extreme  views  of 
those  who  were  regarded  as  pre-eminently  holy.  Bulalius, 
the  father  of  the  heresiarch,  himself  presided  at  a  local  synod 
held  at  Cossarea,  and  condemned  his  son.  This  did  not  suffice 
to  repress  the  heresy,  and  about  the  year  362  a  provincial 
council  was  assembled  at  Gangra,  where  fifteen  bishops, 
among  whom  was  Eulalius,  pronounced  their  verdict  on 
Eustathius  and  his  misguided  followers,  and  drew  up  a  series 
of  canons  denning  the  orthodox  belief  on  the  questions  in- 
volved. That  they  were  received  by  the  church  as  authori- 
tative is  evident  from  their  being  included  in  the  collections 
of  Dionysius  and  Isidor.  These  canons  anathematize  all  who 
refuse  the  sacraments  of  a  married  priest  and  who  hold  that 
he  cannot  officiate  on  account  of  his  marriage ;  also  those  who, 
priding  themselves  on  their  professed  virginity,  arrogantly 
despise  their  married  brethren,  and  who  hold  that  the  duties 
of  wedlock  are  incompatible  with  salvation.1  The  whole 
affords  a  singularly  distinct  record  of  the  doctrines  accepted 
at  this  period,  showing  that  there  was  no  authority  admitted 
for  imposing  restrictions  of  any  kind  on  the  married  clergy. 
It  probably  was  an  effort  on  the  part  of  the  conservatives  of 
the  church  to  restrain  their  more  progressive  brethren,  and 
they  no  doubt  gladly  availed  themselves  of  the  wild  theories 


1  Concil.  Gangrens.  c.  4.   Si  quis  de-    Dionysius  Exiguus  is  somewhat  differ- 
cernit  presbyterum  conjugatum  tan-    ent. 

quam  occasione  nuptiarum  quod  j  Can.  10.  —  Si  quis  propter  Deum 
offerre  non  debeat,  et  ab  ejus  obla-  virginitatem  professus  in  conjugio 
tione  ideo  se  abstinet,  anathema  sit.  j  positos  per  arrogantiam  vituperaverit, 
— I  give  the  Isidorian  version  adopted  |  anathema  sit. — Can.  1  and  9  are  di- 
by  Gratian,  Dist.  xxvm.  c.  15,  and  by  j  rected  against  those  who  condemn 
Burchard,   Lib.    in.   c.    75.      That  of ,  marriage  and  teach  that  it  affords  no 

i  chance  of  heaven. 


OBJECTS  TO  BE  GAINED  BY  CELIBACY.    63 

of  Eustathius  to  stigmatize  the  extravagances  which  were 
flaily  becoming  more  influential.  At  the  same  time  they  were 
careful  to  shield  themselves  behind  a  qualified  concession  to 
the  ascetic  spirit  of  the  period,  for  in  an  epilogue  they  apolo- 
getically declare  their  humble  admiration  of  virginity,  and 
their  belief  that  pious  continence  is  most  acceptable  to  God.1 

In  little  more  than  twenty  years  after  this  emphatic  de- 
nunciation of  all  interference  with  married  priests  we  find  the 
first  absolute  command  addressed  to  the  higher  orders  of  the 
clergy  to  preserve  inviolate  celibacy.  So  abrupt  a  contrast 
provokes  an  inquiry  into  its  possible  causes,  as  no  records 
have  reached  us  exhibiting  any  special  reasons  for  the  change. 

While  the  admirers  of  ascetic  virginity  became  louder  and 
more  enthusiastic  in  their  praises  of  that  blessed  condition,  it 
is  fair  to  presume  that  they  were  daily  more  sensible  of  a 
lower  standard  of  morality  in  the  ministers  of  the  altar,  and 
that  their  susceptibilities  were  more  deeply  shocked  by  the  in- 
troduction and  growth  of  abuses.  While  the  church  was  kept 
purified  by  the  fires  of  persecution,  it  offered  few  attractions 
for  the  worldly  and  ambitious.  Its  ministry  was  too  danger- 
ous to  be  sought  except  by  the  pure  and  zealous  Christian,  and 
there  Was  little  danger  that  pastors  would  err  except  from  over- 
tenderness  of  conscience  or  unthinking  ardor.  When,  however, 
its  temporal  position  was  incalculably  improved  by  its  domi- 
nation throughout  the  empire,  it  became  the  avenue  through 
which  ambition  might  attain  its  ends,  while  its  wealth  held 
out  prospects  of  idle  self-indulgence  to  the  slothful  and  the 
sensual.  A  new  class  of  men,  dangerous  alike  from  their 
talents  or  their  vices,  would  thus  naturally  find  their  way  into 
the  fold,  and  corruption,  masked  under  the  semblance  of 
austerest  virtue,  or  displayed  with  careless  cynicism,  would 
not  be  long  in  penetrating  into  the  Holy  of  Holies.  Immo- 
rality must  have  been  flagrant  when,  in  370,  the  temporal 
power  felt  the  necessity  of  interfering  by  a  law  of  the 
Emperor    Valentinian    denouncing    severe    punishment    on 


1  Nos  autera  virginitatera  cum  hu-  j  tissimam  dicimus.— Concil.  Gangrens. 
militate  admiramur,  et  continentiam  j  Epilog, 
cum  castitate  et  religione  Deo  accep-  [ 


64  LEGISLATION. 

ecclesiastics  who  visited  the  houses  of  widows  and  virgins.1 
When  an  increasing  laxity  of  morals  thus  threatened  to  over* 
come  the  purity  of  the  church,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
advocates  of  asceticism  should  have  triumphed  over  the  more 
moderate  and  conservative  party,  and  that  they  should  im- 
prove their  victory  by  seeking  a  remedy  for  existing  evils  in 
such  laws'  as  should  render  the  strictest  continence  imperative 
on  all  who  entered  into  holy  orders.  They  might  reasonably 
argue  that  if  nothing  else  were  gained,  the  change  would  at 
least  render  the  life  of  the  priest  less  attractive  to  the  vicious 
and  the  sensual,  and  that  the  rigid  enforcement  of  the  new  rules 
would  elevate  the  character  of  the  church  by  preventing  such 
wolves  from  seeking  a  place  among  the  sheep.  If  by  such 
legislation  they  only  added  fresh  fuel  to  the  flame ;  if  they 
heightened  immorality  by  hypocrisy  and  drove  into  vagabond 
licentiousness  those  who  would  perhaps  have  been  content 
with  lawful  marriage,  they  only  committed  an  error  which 
has  ever  been  too  common  with  earnest  men  of  one  idea  to 
warrant  special  surprise. 

Another  object  may  not  improbably  have  entered  into  the 
motives  of  those  who  introduced  the  rule.  The  church  was 
daily  receiving  vast  accessions  of  property  from  the  pious 
zeal  of  its  wealthy  members,  the  death-bed  repentance  of 
despairing  sinners,2  and  the  munificence  of  emperors  and 
prefects,  while  the  effort  to  procure  the  inalienability  of  its 
possessions  dates  from  an  early  period.  Its  acquisitions,  both 
real  and  personal,  were  of  course  exposed  to  much  greater 
risk  of  dilapidation  when  the  ecclesiastics  in  charge  of  its 
widely  scattered  riches  had  families  for  whose  provision  a 
natural  parental  anxiety  might  be  expected  to  override  the 


1  Ecclesiastici,  aut  ex  ecclesiasticis,  [  a  law  of  Valentinian  pronounced  null 
vel  qui  continentium  se  volunt  nomine  j  and  void  all  such  testamentary  pro- 
nuncupari,  viduarum  ac  pupillarum  visions  made  by  those  under  priestly 
domos  non  adeant ;  sed  publicis  ex-  influence  (Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit. 
terminentur  judiciis,  si  posthac  eos  i  ii.  1.  20)— a  provision  repeated  in  390 
ad  fines  earum  vel  propinqui  putave-  |  (Ibid.  1.  27)  with  such  additional  de- 
rint  deferendos. — Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  \  tails  as  show  its  successful  evasion 
Theod.  Tit.  ii.  1.  20.  during  the  interval.     The  industry  of 

2  So  great  was  the  influx  of  wealth  S^S?01'  ^n  ^S^i  *"?,  ^ 
to  the  church  from  the  pious  legacies  (T'  \L  PP;  48~^  ff°-64),  has  collected 
of  the  faithful  that  it  became  an  evil  m»ch  .cunous  matter  beann«  on  the 
of  magnitude  to  the  state,  and  in  370  I  subJect- 


OBJECTS  TO  BE  GAINED  BY  CELIBACY.    65 

sense  of  duty  in  discharging  the  trust  confided  to  them.  The 
Simplest  mode  of  'averting  the  danger  might  therefore  seem 
to  be  to  relieve  the  churchman  of  the  cares  of  paternity,  and, 
by  cutting  asunder  all  the  ties  of  family  and  kindred,  to  bind 
him  completely  and  forever  to  the  church  and  to  that  alone. 
This  motive,  as  we  shall  see,  was  openly  acknowledged  as  a 
powerful  one,  in  later  times,  and  it  no  doubt  served  as  an 
argument  of  weight  in  the  minds  of  those  who  urged  and 
secured  the  adoption  of  the  canon. 

It  appears  to  me  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  all  these 
various  motives  lent  additional  force  to  the  zeal  for  the  purity 
of  the  church  and  to  the  undoubting  belief  in  the  necessity 
of  perpetual  celibacy,  which  impelled  the  Popes,  about  the 
year  385,  to  issue  the  first  definite  command  imposing  it  as 
an  absolute  rule  of  discipline  on  the  ministers  of  the  altar. 
The  question  evidently  was  one  which  largely  occupied  the 
minds  of  men,  and  the  conclusion  was  reached  progressively. 
A  Eoman  synod,  to  which  the  date  of  38-i  is  assigned,  an- 
swered a  series  of  interrogatories  propounded  by  the  bishops 
of  Gaul,  among  which  was  one  relating  to  the  chastity  of  the 
priesthood.  To  this  the  response  was  rather  argumentatory 
and  advisory  in  its  character  than  imperative ;  the  continence 
of  the  higher  grades  of  ecclesiastics  was  insisted  on,  but  no 
definite  punishment  was  ordered  for  its  violation1 — and  no 
maxim  in  legislation  is  better  understood  than  that  a  law 
without  a  penalty  expressed  is  practically  a  dead  letter.  Allu- 
sion was  made  to  previous  efforts  to  enforce  the  observance 
in  various  churches;  surprise  was  expressed  that  light  should 
be  sought  for  on  such  a  question — for  the  Gallic  prelates  had 
evidently  been  in  doubt  respecting  it — and  numerous  reasons 
were  alleged  in  a  manner  to  show  that  the  subject  was  as  yet 
open  to  argument,  and  could  not  be  assumed  as  proved  or  be 
decided  by  authority  alone.  These  reasons  may  be  briefly 
summed  up  as  consisting  of  references  to  the  well-known 
texts  referred  to  in  a  previous  section,  together  with  a  vao'ue 


1  Synod.  Roman,  ad  Gallos  Episc.  is  assigned.     By  some  authorities  it 

Respons.  c.  3.— The  date  of  this  synod  has  been  attributed  to  398,  and  Har- 

is  not  certain,  but  the  year  mentioned  douin  suggests  that  it  may  even  have 

in  the  text  is  the  earliest  to  which  it  been  held  under  Innocent  I. 

5 


66 


LEGISLATION" 


assertion  of  the  opinion  of  the  Fathers  to  the  same  effect. 
Eeference  was  made  to  the  inconsistency  of  exhortations  to 
virginity  proceeding  from  those  who  themselves  were  in- 
volved in  family  cares  and  duties,  a  reasonable  view  when 
we  consider  how  much  of  ecclesiastical  machinery  by  this 
time  turned  on  monachism  ;  and  the  necessity  was  urged 
of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  preserving  the  purity  requi- 
site to  fit  them  for  the  daily  sacrifice  of  the  altar  and  the 
ministration  of  sacraments.  This  latter  point  was  based  upon 
the  assumption  of  a  similar  abstinence  being  imposed  by  the 
old  law  on  the  Levites  during  their  term  of  service  in  the 
Temple,  and  the  example  of  the  pagan  priesthood  was  indig- 
nantly adduced  to  shame  those  who  could  entertain  a  sacri- 
legious doubt  upon  a  matter  so  self-evident.1  The  conclusion 
arrived  at  was  definite,  but,  as  I  have  already  remarked,  no 
means  were  suggested  or  commanded  for  its  enforcement. 

Not  many  months  later,  Pope  Damasus  died,  but  the  cause 
was  safe  in  the  hands  of  his  successor.  Scarcely  had  Siricius 
ascended  the  pontifical  throne,  when,  in  385,  he  addressed  an 
epistle  to  Himerius,  Archbishop  of  Tarragona,  expressing  his 
grief  and  indignation  that  the  Spanish  clergy  should  pay  so 
little  regard  to  the  sanctity  of  their  calling  as  to  maintain 
relations  with  their  wives.     It  is  evident  from  the  tenor  of 


1  "  Certe  idololatrse  ut  impietates 
exerceant  et  dsemonibus  inimolent, 
imperant  sibi  continentiam  naulie- 
brem,  et  ab  escis  quoque  se  purgari 
volunt,  et  me  interrogas  si  sacerdos 
Dei  vivi  spiritualia  oblaturus  sacri- 
ficia  purgatus  perpetuo  debeat  esse,  an 
totus  in  carne  carnis  curani  debeat 
face re  ?" 

If  all  the  postulates  be  granted,  the 
reasoning  is  unanswerable,  and  as  the 
precedents  of  the  Old  Testament  have 
been  relied  upon  in  all  arguments 
since  the  time  of  Siricius,  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  refer  to  the  caution  of 
Abimelech  before  giving  the  shew- 
bread  to  David  (I.  Kings  21)  as  one 
of  the  texts  most  constantly  quoted, 
and  to  the  residence  of  Zacharias  in 
the  Temple  during  his  term  of  minis- 
tration (Luke  i.  23),  which  was  fre- 
quently instanced.  These  are  certainly 


more  germane  to  the  matter  than  the 
linen  breeches  provided  for  Aaron  and 
his  sons  (Exod.  xxviii.  42-3),  by 
which  the  Venerable  Bede  assures  us 
(De  Tabernac.  Lib.  in.  c.  9)  "  signifi- 
catum  esse  sacerdotes  Novi  Testa- 
menti  aut  virgines  esse,  aut  contracta 
cum  uxoribus  foedera  dissolvisse." 

As  regards  the  pagan  priesthood, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  their  ex- 
ample had  its  influence  in  introducing 
the  custom  among  the  Christians.  Ab- 
solute continence  for  ten  days  was  a 
prerequisite  to  admission  to  the  »Eleu- 
sinian  mysteries  of  Greece  and  to  the 
Bacchic  mysteries  of  Rome  ;  while  a 
declaration  of  virginity  was  exacted  in 
the  Dionysiac  solemnities  in  Athens. 
These  regarded  merely  votaries  ;  as 
respects  the  permanent  priests  of  va- 
rious deities,  I  have  already  quoted 
the  allusions  of  Tertullian  and  Jerome. 


DECRETAL    OF    SIRICIUS. 


6' 


the  decretal  that  Himerius  had  been  unable  to  enforce  the 
new  discipline,  and  had  appealed  to  Eome  for  assistance  in 
breaking  down  the  stubborn  resistance  which  he  had  encoun- 
tered, for  allusion  is  made  to  some  of  the  refractory  who  had 
justified  themselves  by  the  freedom  of  marriage  allowed  to 
the  Levites  under  the  old  law,  while  others  had  expressed 
their  regret  and  had  declared  their  sin  to  be  the  result  of 
ignorance.     Siricius  adopted  a  much  firmer  tone  than  his 
predecessor.     He  indulged  in  less  elaboration  of  argument; 
a  few  texts,  more  or  less  apposite ;  an  expression  of  wonder 
that  the  rule  should  be  called  in  question ;  a  distinct  assertion 
of  its  application  to  the  three  grades  of  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons;  a  sentence  of  expulsion  on  all  who  had  dared  to 
offer  resistance,  and  a  promise  of  pardon  for  those  who  had 
offended  through  ignorance,  allowing  them  to  retain  their 
positions  as  long  as  they  observed  complete  separation  from 
their  wives,  though  even  then  they  were  pronounced  inca- 
pable of  all  promotion — such  was  the  first  definitive  canon, 
prescribing  and  enforcing  sacerdotal  celibacy,  exhibited  by 
the  records  of  the  church.1 

The  confident  manner  in  which  the  law  is  thus  laid  down 
as  incontrovertible  and  absolute  might  almost  make  us  doubt 
whether  it  were  not  older  than  the  preceding  pages  have 
shown  it  to  be,  if  Siricius  had  not  confessed  the  weakness  of 
the  cause  by  adopting  a  very  different  tone  within  a  year. 
In  386  he  addressed  the  church  of  Africa  with  certain  canons 
adopted  by  a  Eoman  synod.  Of  these  the  first  eight  relate 
to  observances  about  which  there  was  at  that  time  no  ques- 
tion, and  they  are  expressed  in  the  curtest  and  most  decisive 
phraseology.  The  ninth  canon  is  conceived  in  a  spirit  totally 
different.  It  persuades,  exhorts,  and  entreats  that  the  three 
orders  shall  preserve  their  purity;  it  argues  as  to  the  pro- 
priety and  necessity  of  the  matter,  which  it  supports  by 
various  texts,  but  it  does  not  assume  that  the  observance  thus 
enjoined  is  even  a  custom,  much  less  a  law,  of  the  church; 


1  Siricii  Epist.  i.  c.  7. — It  would  seem 
from  this  decretal  (cap.  8,  9,  10,  11) 
that  even  the  rule  excluding  digarai 
was  wholly  neglected.     Siricius  far- 


ther  (cap.  13)  urges  the  admission  of 
monks  to  holy  orders,  for  the  purpose 
of  providing  a  priesthood  vowed  to 
chastity. 


68  LEGISLATION. 

it  urges  that  the  scandal  of  marriage  be  removed  from  the 
clergy,  but  it  threatens  no  penalty  for  refusal.1  Siricius  was 
too  imperious  and  too  earnest  in  all  that  he  undertook  for  us 
to  imagine  that  he  would  have  adopted  pleading  and  entreaty 
if  he  had  felt  that  he  possessed  the  right  to  command;  nor 
would  he  have  condescended  to  beg  for  the  removal  of  an 
opprobrium  if  he  were  speaking  with  all  the  authority  of 
unquestioned  tradition  to  enforce  a  canon  which  had  become 
an  unalterable  part  of  ecclesiastical  discipline. 

It  is  observable  that  in  these  decretals  no  authority  is 
quoted  later  than  the  Apostolic  texts,  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  have  but  little  bearing  on  the  subject.  No  canons  of 
councils,  no  epistles  of  earlier  popes,  no  injunctions  of  the 
Fathers  are  brought  forward  to  strengthen  the  position  as- 
sumed, whence  the  presumption  is  irresistible  that  none  such 
existed,  and  we  may  rest  satisfied  that  no  evidence  has  been 
lost  that  would  prove  the  pre-existence  of  the  rule. 

1  Pneterea,  quod  dignum,  pudicum  i  Qua  de  re  hortor,  moneo,  rogo,  tollatur 
et  honestum  est,  suademus  ut  sacer-  |  hoc  opprobrium  quod  potest  etiam  jure 
dotes  et  levitse  cum  uxoribus  suis  non  ',  geutilitas  accusare.— Concil.  Teleusis 
coeant,  quia  in  ministerio  divino  quo-    c.  9. 
tidianis  necessitatibus  occupantur.  .  .  | 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  CEEIBACY. 

Celibacy  was  but  one  of  the  many  shapes  in  which  the 
rapidly  progressing  sacerdotalism  of  Rome  was  overlaying 
religion  with  a  multitude  of  formal  observances.  That  which 
in  earlier  times  had  been  the  spontaneous  expression  of  fervid 
zeal,  or  the  joyful  self-sacrifice  of  ardent  asceticism,  was  thus 
changed  into  a  law,  bearing  upon  all  alike,  and  taking  no 
count  of  the  individual  idiosyncrasies  which  might  render  the 
burden  too  heavy  for  the  shoulders  of  the  less  fiery  though 
not  less  conscientious  Christian.  That  it  should  meet  with 
resistance  was  to  be  expected  when  we  consider  that  the  local 
independence  of  primitive  times  was  as  yet  too  near  in  the 
memories  of  all  for  obedience  at  once  to  take  the  place  of 
the  voluntary  loyalty  which  had  carried  the  church  through 
three  centuries  of  scorn  and  persecution.  In  fact,  energetic 
protests  were  not  wanting,  as  well  as  the  more  perplexing 
stubbornness  of  passive  resistance. 

St.  Ambrose  admits  that  although  the  necessity  of  celibacy 
was  generally  acknowledged,  still,  in  many  of  the  remoter 
districts,  there  were  to  be  found  those  who  neglected  it,  and 
who  justified  themselves  by  ancient  custom,  relying  on  pre- 
cautions to  purify  themselves  for  their  sacred  ministry.1  In 
this  he  probably  alludes  to  the  Leonistse,  simple  Christians 
whose  refusal  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  sacerdotalism,  which 
was  daily  becoming  more  rigorous  and  indispensable,  caused 
their  expulsion  from  Rome,  and  who,  taking  refuge  in  the 
recesses  of  the  Cottian  Alps,  endeavored  to  preserve  the  un- 


1  Quod  eo  non  pneterii  quia  in  pie-  usu    veteri    defendunt,    quando    per 

risque  abditioribus  locis,  cum  minis-  intervallo  dierum  sacrificium  defere- 

terium  gererent,   vel  etiam   sacerdo-  batur. — Arnbros.  de  Officiis  Lib.  i.  c. 

tium,  filios  susceperent,  et  id  tanquam  50. 


70 


ENFORCEMENT    OF    CELIBACY. 


adulterated  faith  of  earlier  times  in  the  seclusion  and  priva- 
tion of  exile. 

All  who  revolted  against  the  increasing  oppression  of  the 
hierarchy  were  not,  however,  content  to  bury  themselves  in 
solitude  and  silence,  and  heresiarchs  sprang  up  who  waged  a 
bold  but  unequal  contest.  Bonosus,  Jovinian,  and  Yigilantius 
are  the  names  which  have  reached  us  as  the  most  conspicuous 
leaders  in  the  ill-advised  attempt  to  turn  back  the  advancing 
spirit  of  the  age,  and  of  these  Jovinian  is  the  foremost  figure. 
Bonosus,  who  was  Bishop  of  Sardica,  acquired  a  peculiarly 
sinister  notoriety,  for,  in  his  opposition  to  the  ascetic  spirit, 
he  adopted  a  heresy  of  Tertullian  and  Photinus,  and  assailed 
one  of  the  chief  arguments  of  the  admirers  of  celibacy  by 
denying  the  perpetual  virginity  of  the  Virgin ;  whence  his 
followers  acquired  the  euphonious  title  of  Bonosiacs.1  For 
this  he  was  denounced  by  Pope  Siricius  with  all  the  vehe- 
mence which  doctrines  so  sacrilegious  were  calculated  to 
excite,2  and  his  followers  were  duly  condemned  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Capua  in  389,  while  the  tireless  pen  of  St.  Jerome  was 
called  into  requisition  to  refute  errors  so  unpardonable.3 
Notwithstanding  this  they  continued  to  flourish,  for  an  epistle 


1  This  belief  was  founded  on  the 

words  of  Matthew  (i.  25),  "nai  ovk 
iynct>7XSv   avrtjv  Icd?  ov   Itexe   tov   viov  duTu? 

T&V    TTpftJTSTOJtGV,    HO.I    lxaX6S"S     TO    OVOfXa     CLliTOV 

tus-ouv." — "And  he  .knew  her  not  till 
she  had  brought  forth  her  first-born 
son  ;  and  he  called  his  name  Jesus." 
The  restrictive  "till"  and  the  charac- 
terization of  Jesus  as  the  first-born  of 
the  Virgin  are  certainly  not  easily 
explicable  on  any  other  supposition  ; 
nor  is  the  difficulty  lessened  by  the 
various  explanations  concerning  the 
family  of  Joseph,  by  which  such  ex- 
pressions as  laxoSw  rev  cL$E'h<pGV  rov  Kupiov 
— Jacobum  f  rat  rum  Domini  (Galat.  i. 
19) — are  taken  by  commentators  in  a 
spiritual  sense,  or  are  eluded  by  trans- 
ferring to  the  Greek  a  Hebrew  idiom 
which  confounds  brothers  with  cou- 
sins. In  theConstitutiones  Apostolicse 
occurs  a  passage — "  Et  ego  Jacobus 
frater  quidem  Christi  secundum  car- 
nem,  servus  autem  tanquam  Dei" — 
which  seems  to  place  it  in  an  unmis- 


takable light,  if  it  be  an  extract  from 
some  forgotten  Gospel,  although  it  may 
only  reflect  the  opinions  of  the  third 
century  when  the  collection  was  writ- 
ten or  compiled. 

The  Bonosiacs  were  also  sometimes 
called  Helvidians. — S.  Augustin.  de 
Hseresibus  §  84. — Isidor.  Ilispalens. 
Etymolog.  Lib.  vm.  c.  v.  §  57. 

In  an  age  which  was  accustomed  to 
such  arguments  as  ''per  mulierem 
culpa  successit,  per  virginem  salus 
evenit"  (Rescript.  Episcopp.  ad  Siri- 
cium),  it  is  easy  to  appreciate  the 
pious  horror  evoked  by  such  blas- 
phemous heresies. 

2  Merito  vestram  sanctitatem  abhor- 
ruisse,  quod  ex  eodem  utero  Virginali, 
ex  quo  secundum  carnem  Christus 
natus  est,  alius  partus  effusus  sit. — 
Epist.  Siric.  ap.  Batthyani,  Legg.  Ec- 
cles.  Hungar.  T.  i.  p.  210. 

3  Hieron.  de  Perpet.  Virgin.  B.  Ma- 
rise  adv.  Helvidium. 


JOVINIAN.  71 

of  Innocent  I.  to  Lawrence,  Bishop  of  Segna,  proves  that  the 
error  was  openly  taught  on  the  eastern  shores  of  the  Adriatic 
in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century;1  in  443  the  council  of 
Aries  shows  their  existence  in  France  by  promising  recon- 
ciliation to  those  who  should  manifest  proper  repentance,  and 
that  of  Orleans  as  late  as  538  still  contains  an  allusion  to 
them.2  The  belief  even  extended  to  Arabia,  where  a  sect 
professing  it  is  stigmatized  by  Epiphanius  as  Antidicomari- 
anitarians,  whose  conversion  that  worthy  bishop  endeavored 
to  secure  by  a  long  epistle,  in  which  his  labored  explanations 
of  the  stubborn  text  of  Matthew  are  hardly  more  convincing 
than  his  hearty  objurgations  of  the  blasphemous  dogma,  or 
his  illustrative  comparison  of  the  Virgin  to  a  lioness  bearing 
but  one  whelp.3 

While  Jovinian  shared  in  this  particular  the  error  of  Bo- 
nosus  and  Helvidius,  he  did  not  attach  undue  importance  to 
it.  More  practically  inclined,  his  heresy  consisted  principally 
in  denying  the  efficacy  of  celibacy,  and  this  he  maintained  in 
Rome  itself,  with  more  zeal  than  discretion.  Siricius  caused 
his  condemnation  and  that  of  his  associates  in  a  synod  held 
about  the  year  390, 4  and  succeeded  in  driving  him  to  Milan, 
where  he  had  many  proselytes.  There  was  no  peace  for  him 
there.  A  synod  held  under  the  auspices  of  St.  Ambrose  bears 
testimony  to  the  wickedness  of  his  doctrines  and  to  the  popu- 


1  Epist.  xx.  |  rested    solely   on    tradition,    and   yet 

>  Concil.  Arelatens.   II.   can.  17.-  *h!£  We/e  Emitted   as  undoubted 

Concil.  Anrelian.  III.  can.  31.  by  all  parties,  mstanced"  que  la  Vierge 

;  Mane  demoura  vierge  apres  lenrante- 

3  Panar.  Hseres.  78. — It  is   hardly  nient,  et  plusieurs  autres  semblables 

to  be  wondered  at  that  at  the  time  of  par  consequent;   ce  qui  a  este  bailie 

the  Reformation  the  Bonosiac  heresy  de  main  en  main  par  nos  peres,  ores 

should  have  been  revived.     In  1523,  qu'il  ne   soit    escript,   n'est   pourtant 

at  the   Diet   of  Niirnberg,  the   Papal  moins  certain  et  approuve  que  s'il  es- 

orator  accused  the  eccentric  and  in-  toit  temoigne  par  l'Escripture"  (Pierre 

domitable    Andrew    Osiander    '-quod  de  la  Place,  Liv.  vn.). 

praedicasset  Beatam  Virginem  Mariam        .  TT  •,    .      e  -.    „     a.     +-         - 

r     .  ~,    .  ..  s  •       -VT-  Laia  suscitata  fait  sententia,  ut 

postChnsti  partum  non  mansisse  vir-  T     .    .  .  ,.        r,     •  ,.     V, 

F.         „  /«%?.»*        i  -irnox  Jovinianus,  Auxentius,  Geniahs,  Ge- 

ginem"  (Spalatim  Annal.  ann.  1523),       .     .         ,'  ,.       „,   .•   '       ».     . • ' 

u  a  f\  '     j i      *       j  e       f,i  /l  mmator,    Felix,  Plotmus,  Martianus, 

but  Osiander  found  few  followers.    At  T  . '      .  T  •  •  •          i 

.,      «„  ,  r>  •  •      ic^-i    n  Januanus  et  Incjenio.sus  qui  incentores 

he  Colloquy  of  Poissy,  in  1561,  the  fa         .g   «    w       h^mij8  inventi 

learned   Claude  d  Kspense    doctor  of  d  Sententia%t  nostro  judi. 

Sorbonne,  in  arguing  that  there  were      .     {    X)9rx)9inum  damnati   extra  ec 

many  things  the  authority  of  which  c  °  .in  PerPetuum  famcnat,.'.e^t.,a+  e.c" 

J  °  J  clesiam  remanerent. — Sirica  Epist.  n. 


72 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   CELIBACY 


lar  clamor  raised  against  him,1  and  the  wanderer  again  set 
forth  on  his  weary  pilgrimage.  Deprived  of  refuge  in  the 
cities,  he  disseminated  his  tenets  throughout  the  country, 
where  ardent  followers,  in  spite  of  contumely  and  persecu- 
tion, gathered  around  him  and  conducted  their  worship  in  the 
fields  and  hamlets.  The  laws  promulgated  about  this  time 
against  heresy  were  severe  and  searching,  and  bore  directly 
upon  all  who  deviated  from  the  orthodox  formulas  of  the 
Catholic  church,  yet  Jovinian  braved  them  all.  Even  the 
wrathful  invective  and  scandalous  accusations  of  St.  Jerome2 
were  insufficient  to  put  down  the  stubborn  schismatics,  who 
maintained  their  faith  until  the  church,  wearied  out  with  their 
obstinacy  and  unable  to  convert  or  to  silence  them,  appealed 
to  the  secular  power  for  more  efficient  assistance.  Perhaps 
Jovinian's  long  career  of  successful  resistance  may  have  em- 
boldened him;  perhaps  his  sect  was  growing  numerous 
enough  to  promise  protection ;  at  all  events,  despite  the  im- 
perial rescripts  which  shielded  with  peculiar  care  the  Apos- 
tolic city  from  the  presence  of  heretics,  Jovinian  in  412  openly 
held  assemblages  of  his  followers  in  Eome,  to  the  scandal 
of  the  faithful.  Their  complaints  were  heard  by  the  misera- 
ble shadow  who  then  occupied  the  throne  of  Augustus,  and 


1  Nee  uiiramur  si  luporum  rabiem 
grex  Domini  perhorruit,  in  quibus 
Christi  vocem  non  recognovit.  Ag- 
restis  enim  nlulatus  est,  nullam  vir- 
ginitatis  gratiam,  nullum  castitatis 
ordinem  servare,  promiscue  omnia 
velle  confundere,  diversorum  gradus 
abrogare  meritorum,  et  paupertatem 
quandam  co3lestium  remunerationum 
inducere,  quasi  Christo  una  sit  palma 
quam  tribuit,  ac  non  plurimi  abun- 
dent  tituli  prsemiorum.  Simulant  se 
ista  donare  conjugio.  Sed  quae  potest 
laus  esse  conjugii,  si  nulla  virginitatis 
est  gloria  ? — Rescript.  Episcopp.  ad 
Siricium.   (Harduin.  Concil.  I.  853.) 

2  "  Post  prseconium  tuum  et  balneas, 
quse  viros  pariter  et  fceminas  lavant, 
omnis  impatientia,  quse  ardentem 
prius  libidinem  quasi  verecundise  ves- 
tibus  tegebat,  nudata  est  et  exposita  ; 
quse  ante  in  occulta  erant,  nunc  in 
propatulo   sunt.  .  .  .  Occultos    adul- 


teros  in  apertos  verterent  maritos." 
He  further  represents  Jovinian  as  ex- 
horting his  followers  "  Raro  jejunate, 
crebrius  nubite  ;  non  enim  potestis 
implere  opera  nuptiarum  nisi  rnul- 
sum  et  carnem  et  nucleum  sumpse- 
ritis.  Viribus  opus  est  ad  libidinem  ; 
cito  caro  consumpta  marcescit.  No- 
lite  timere  fornicationem.  Qui  semel 
in  Christo  baptizatus  est,  cadere  non 
potest." — Hieron.  adv.  Jovin. — There 
is  no  evidence  in  the  proceedings 
against  Jovinian  that  any  disorders  of 
this  kind  were  permitted  by  him,  and 
Jerome  was  too  impetuous  and  reck- 
less a  controversialist  for  us  to  ima- 
gine that  these  accusations  are  aught 
but  the  commonplace  slanders  em- 
ployed by  the  polemics  of  all  ages. 
St.  Augustine,  indeed,  admits  that  Jo- 
vinian himself  was  chaste,  though  he 
denied  the  efficacy  of  celibacy. — Au- 
gustin.  de  Hseres.  No.  lxxxii. 


VIGILANTIUS.  73 

Honorius  applied  himself  to  the  task  of  persecution  with 
relentless  zeal.  Jovinian  was  scourged  with  a  leaded  thong 
and  exiled  to  the  rock  of  Boa,  on  the  coast  of  Dalmatia,  while 
his  followers  were  hunted  down,  deported,  and  scattered 
among  the  savage  islands  of  the  Adriatic.1 

Nor  was  this  the  only  struggle.  A  wild  shepherd  lad  named 
Vigilantius,  born  among  the  Pjrenean  valleys,  was  fortunate 
enough  to  be  the  slave  of  St.  Sulpicius  Severus,  whose  wealth, 
culture,  talents,  and  piety  rendered  him  prominent  through- 
out Southern  Gaul.  The  earnest  character  of  the  slave  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  the  master;  education  developed  his 
powers ;  he  was  manumitted,  and  the  people  of  his  native 
Calagurris  chose  him  for  their  priest.  Sent  by  Sulpicius  as 
bearer  of  letters  to  his  friends  St.  Paulinus  at  Nola,  and  St. 
Jerome  in  his  Bethlehem  retreat,  Yigilantius  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  comparing  the  simple  Christianity  of  his  native 
mountains  with  the  splendid  pageantry  of  Eome,  the  elegant 
retirement  of  Nola,  and  the  heated  controversialism  which 
agitated  the.  asceticism  of  Bethlehem.  Notwithstanding  the 
cordiality  of  their  first  acquaintance,  his  residence  with  Je- 
rome was  short.  Both  were  too  earnestly  dogmatic  in  their 
natures  for  harmony  to  exist  between  the  primitive  Can- 
tabrian  shepherd  and  the  fierce  apostle  of  Buddhist  Chri? 
tianity,  who  devoted  his  life  to  reconciling  the  doctrines 
of  the  Latin  church  with  the  practices  of  ManicheismJ 
Brief  friendship  ended  in  a  quarrel,  and  Yigilantius  extended 
his  experiences  by  a  survey  of  Egypt,  where  the  vast  hordes 
of  Nitrian  anchorites  were  involved  in  civil  strife  over  the 
question  of  Origenism.  Eeturning  through  Italy,  he  tarried 
in  Milan  and  among  the  Alps,  where  he  found  the  solution  of 
his  doubts  and  the  realization  of  his  ideas  in  the  teaching  of 
Jovinian  and  in  the  exiled  churches  of  the  Leonistae.  He  had 
left  Gaul  a  disciple ;  he  returned  to  it  a  missionary,  prepared  to 


1  Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.   Tit.  v.  1.  !  he  supports  his  arguments  in  favor  of 
53.  !  virginity  by  a  reference  to  the  legend 

,  T,    .  ,  ,,         ,  .     that  Grotaina  Buddha  was  born  of  a 

2  It  is    perhaps  worthy  of  remark      .     .         ,,         ■,     r>    j  *  • 

,,     .    T       r         r.    .  _.,.*         ..,     .,       virgin  —  "quod    Luddain    pnncipem 
that    Jerome   was    familiar  with    the     -,    &      ..  _         -,  ,.  • 

,     ,   .  ,    .      ,.,.  ,.    „     .  dogmatis    eorum    e    latere    suo  vireo 

doctrines    and    traditions    of    Eastern'       8        ..  ,      „•  *       T     •  ,    tu 

...  t     i  •  i         t     •    •         generant." — Hieron.  adv.  Jovin.  Lib. 

asceticism.    In  his  attack  on  Jovmian  '  &        .^ 


74 


ENFORCEMENT    OF    CELIBACY. 


do  battle  with  sacerdotalism  in  all  its  forms.  Not  only  did  he 
deny  the  necessity  of  celibacy  and  the  paramount  efficacy  of 
virginity,  bat  in  his  zeal  for  reform  he  swept  away  fasting  and 
maceration,  he  ridiculed  the  adoration  of  relics,  and  pro- 
nounced the  miracles  wrought  at  their  altars  to  be  the  work 
of  demons;  he  objected  to  the  candles  and  incense  around  the 
shrines,  to  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  to  the  oblations  of  the 
faithful.1 

No  doubt  the  decretals  of  Siricius  had  rendered  compulsory 
the  celibacy  of  the  priesthood  throughout  Gaul  and  Spain. 
The  machinery  of  the  hierarchy  may  readily  have  stifled 
open  opposition,  however  frequent  may  have  been  the  secret 
infractions  of  the  rule.2     This  may  perhaps  have  contributed 


1  Exortus  est  subito  Vigilantius,  seu 
verius  Dormitantius,  qui  immundo 
spiritu  pugnat  contra  Christi  spiritum, 
et  martyrum  neget  sepulchra  ve'ne- 
randa,  daminandas  dicat  esse  vigilias  ; 
nunquam  nisi  in  Pascha  alleluia  can- 
tandum ;  continentiamhseresini;  pudi- 
citiam  libidinis  seminarium.  Et  quo- 
in odo  Euphorbus  in  Pythagora  renatus 
esse  perhibetur,  sic  in  isto  Joviniani 
mens  prava  sun-exit ;  ut  et  in  illo  et  in 
hoc  diaboli  respondere  cogamur  in- 
sidiis. — Hieron.  adv.  Vigilant,  c.  1. 

2  The  canons  of  the  first  council  of 
Toledo,  held  about  the  year  400,  show 
by  their  repetition  of  the  rule  the 
struggle  necessary  for  its  enforcement 
— and  their  expressions  further  prove 
its  introduction  as  an  innovation  dur- 
ing the  existing  generation.  Thus 
Can.  I.  "Placuit  ut  diacones  vel  integri 
vel  casti  sint,  et  continentis  vitse, 
etiam  si  uxores  habeant,  in  ministerio 
constituantur  ita  tamen  ut  si  qui  etiam 
ante  interdictum  quod  per  priores  ante 
nos  episcopos  constitutum  est,  incon- 
tinenter  cum  uxoribus  suis  vixerint, 
presbyterii  honore  non  cumulentur : 
si  quis  vero  ex  presbyteris  ante  inter- 
dictum filios  susceperit,  de  presby- 
terio  ad  episcopatum  non  admitta- 
tur." 

Other  canons  make  manifest  the 
troubles  arising  from  the  new  order  of 
things,  and  the  novel  questions  pre- 
senting themselves  for  settlement. 
Thus 

Can.  3.  A  lector  marrying  a  widow 


was  ineligible  for  promotion  beyond 
the  subdiaconate. 

Can.  4.  A  subdeacon  left  a  widower 
and  marrying  again  was  to  be  degrad- 
|  ed  to  the  position  of  ostiarius  or  lec- 
I  tor.  If  he  married  a  third  time, 
j  "  quod  nee  dicendum  nee  audiendum 
j  est,"  after  two  years'  separation  and 
I  due  penitence,  he  could  be  readmitted 
to  communion  as  a  layman  only. 

Can.  6,  which  forbade  undue  inti- 
macy between  holy  virgins  and  lay- 
men, not  kinsmen,  and  regulated  their 
attendance  at  banquets,  &c,  showed 
that  considerable  liberty  was  still 
permitted. 

Can.  7.  Ecclesiastics,  whose  wives 
were  unfaithful  under  the  privations 
imposed,  were  empowered  to  tie  them 
up,  to  beat  and  to  starve  them,  always 
avoiding  risk  of  life.  The  husband 
was  forbidden  to  admit  his  guilty  con- 
sort to  his  table,  unless  she  should  be- 
come converted,  after  due  penitence. 

Can.  18.  The  widow  of  a  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon  who  married  again 
was  deprived  of  communion  until  her 
death-bed. 

Can.  19.  If  the  daughter  of  a  bish- 
op, priest,  or  deacon,  after  being  dedi- 
cated to  God,  should  marry,  the  parent 
who  should  become  reconciled  to  her 
was  to  be  excommunicated. 

Canons  like  these  were  repeated 
with  endless  iteration  during  the  suc- 
ceeding centuries,  of  which  this  spe- 
cimen will  probably  suffice  the  reader. 


VIGIL  AN  TIUS.  70 

to  the  success  of  Vigilantius.  Even  his  former  master,  St. 
Sulpicius  Severus,  and  St.  Exuperius,  Bishop  of  Toulouse, 
were  inclined  to  favor  his  reforms.  That  they  spread  with 
dangerous  rapidity  throughout  Gaul  from  south  to  north  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  in  404  Victricius,  Bishop  of  Eouen, 
and  in  405  St.  Exuperius  of  Toulouse  applied  to  Innocent  I. 
for  advice  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  should  deal  with 
the  new  heresy.  It  also  counted  numerous  adherents  through- 
out Spain,  among  whom  even  some  bishops  were  enumerated. 
The  alarm  was  promptly  sounded,  and  the  enginery  of  the 
church  was  brought  to  bear  upon  the  hardy  heretic.  The 
vast  reputation  and  authority  of  Jerome  lent  force  to  the 
coarse  invective  with  which  he  endeavored  to  overwhelm  his 
whilom  acquaintance,  and  though  the  nickname  of  Dormi- 
tantius  which  he  bestowed  {xat  'di/Ta^ootv)  on  Vigilantius  was  a 
sarcasm  neither  very  severe  nor  very  refined,  the  disgusting 
exaggeration  of  his  adversary's  tenets  in  which  he  as  usual 
indulged  had  doubtless  its  destined  effect.1  Pope  Innocent 
was  not  backward  in  asserting  the  authority  of  Rome  and  the 
inviolable  nature  of  the  canon.  In  his  epistle  to  Yictricius, 
he  repeated  the  decretal  of  Siricius,  but  in  a  somewhat  more 
positive  form  ;2  while  in  the  following  year  (405)  he  con- 
firmed the  vacillating  faith  of  Exuperius  by  declaring  that 
any  violation  of  the  strictest  celibacy  on  the  part  of  priest 
or  deacon  subjects  the  offender  to  the  deprivation  of  his 
position.3     As'  in  the  previous  effort  of  Siricius,  however, 


1  Proh  nefas !  episcopos  sui  sceleris  I      z  Prseterea  quod  dignum,  pudicura 

dicitur   habere    consortes  :    si    tamen  !  et  honestum  est,  tenere  ecclesia  om- 

episcopi  noniinandi  sunt  qui  non  ordi-  I  nino    debet,  ut    sacerdotes    et    levitse 

nant  di aeon oa  nisi  prius  uxores  duxe-  |  cum    uxorious    non    niisceantur  .  .  . 

rint;  nullicoclibi  credentes  pudicitiam,  !  Maxime  ut  vetus  regula  hoc  habet  ut 

imnioostendentes  quam  sancte  vivant    quisquis    corruptus   baptizatus    cleri- 

qui  male  de  omnibus  suspicantur ;  et  !  cus  esse  voluisset,  spondeat  uxorem 

nisi  prsegnantes  uxores  viderint  cleri-    omnino  non  ducere. — Innocent.  Epist. 

corum,  infantesque  de  ulnis  matrum  ■  ii.  c.  9,  10. 

vaerientes,    Christi    sacramenta    non        ,  TT,  .  ,.        .      .       «>   ..    ,   ,., 

.   .f         .   '  ti       j        •*.  t^        •*  3  Ut  mcontinentes  in  officus  talibus 

tnbuant.   .  .  .   Hoc  docuit  Dormitan-  ...  •         i     •     *•       i 

..        ,.,  . ,.    .  .  ...  ipositi,  omni  ecclesiastico  honore  pn- 

tius,  libidini  frsena  permittens,  et  na-    ^     .  ■,     ...      *  ,  +  ,        • 

',  ,  r  .    . '        ,      i  ventur,  nee  admittantur  ad  tale  min- 

turalem  carnis  ardorem,  qui   in  ado-    .  ..    .    '  ,       ,  ..        ,. 

,  , .         ,  <■  •*         •    '  isterium,  quod  sola  contmentia  opor- 

lescentia    plerumque    fervescit,    suis    ...       ,     .       A     f      ,-,  ,  •,  1 

■u        x-u         j      i-  •  <•      i  tet  impleri. — As  for  those  who  could 

hortatibus    duphcans,    immo    extin-    -  r    ,  ,    ,  „          ,T  .  .,      t 

..      .  r  .        '  .      .,.,..  I  be  proved  to  have  seen  the  epistle  of 

guens  coitu  loeminarum,  ut  nihil  sit    0.  F.         u-w  *.         j«  m 

Siricius — '•  llh    sunt   modis    omnibus 


quo  distemus  a  porcis,  etc. — Hieron.  I      ,  -,.  „     T  .      -n,   .  . 

adv.  Vigilant,  c.  2.  i  submov( 


in. 


76 


ENFORCEMENT    OF    CELIBACY. 


ignorance  is  admitted  as  an  excuse,  entitling  him  who  can 
plead  it  to  retain  his  grade  without  hope  of  preferment — and 
the  test  of  this  ignorance  is  held  to  be  the  canon  of  385. 
This  latter  point  is  noteworthy,  for  it  is  a  tacit  confession  of 
the  novelty  of  the  rule,  although  Innocent  labored  at  great 
length  to  prove  both  its  antiquity  and  necessity  from  the  well 
known  texts  of  St.  Paul  and  the  Leviticai  observances.  Yet 
no  intermediate  authority  was  quoted,  and  punishment  was 
only  to  be  inflicted  on  those  who  could  be  proved  to  have 
seen  the  decretal  of  Siricius. 

The  further  career  of  Yigilantius  and  his  sectaries  is  lost 
in  the  darkness  and  confusion  attendant  upon  the  ravages  of 
the  Alans  and  Yandals  who. overran  Gaul  during  the  following 
year.  We  only  know  that  Sulpicius  and  Exuperius,  frightened 
by  the  violence  of  Jerome  and  the  authority  of  Innocent,  aban- 
doned their  protege,  and  we  can  presume  that,  during  the 
period  of  wild  disorder  which  followed  the  irruption  of  the 
Barbarians,  what  little  protection  Eome  could  afford  was  too 
consoling  to  the  afflicted  churches  for  them  to  risk  its  with- 
drawal by  resisting  on  any  point  the  daily  increasing  preten- 
sions of  the  Apostolic  See  to  absolute  command.1 

(The  victory  was  won,  for  with  the  death  of  Yigilantius  and 
Jovinian  ended  the  last  organized  and  acknowledged  attempt 
to  stay  the  progress  of  celibacy  in  the  Latin  church,  until 
centuries  later,  when  the  regulation  was  already  too  ancient 
and  too  well  supported  by  tradition  and  precedent  to  be  suc- 
cessfully called  in  question. 

In  Africa  we  find  no  trace  of  open  resistance  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  rule,  though  time  was  evidently  required  to 
procure  its  enforcement.  We  have  seen  that  Siricius,  in  386, 
addressed  an  appeal  to  the  African  bishops.  To  this  they 
responded  by  holding  a  council  in  which  they  agreed  "con- 
scriptione  quadam"  that  chastity  should  be  preserved  by  the 
three  higher  orders.  This  apparently  was  not  conclusive,  for 
in  390  another  council  was  held  in  which  Aurelius  of  Car- 


1  The  observance  of  the  rule  and 
its  effects  are  well  illustrated  in  the 
story  of  Urbicus,  Bishop  of  Clermont, 


and  his  unhappy  wife,  as  naively  re- 
lated by  Gregory  of  Tours  (Hist. 
Franc.  L.  i.  c.  44). 


THE    AFRICAN    CHURCH. 


77 


thage  again  introduced  the  subject.     He  recapitulated  their 
recent  action,  urged  that  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  and 
ancient  usage  required  the  observance  of  the  rule,  and  ob- 
tained the  assent  of  his  brother  prelates  to  the  separation  from 
their  wives  of  those  who  were  concerned  in  administering  the 
sacraments.1     The  form  of  these  proceedings  shows  that  it 
was  an  innovation,  requiring  deliberation  and  the  assent  of 
the  ecclesiastics  present,  not  a  simple  affirmation  of  a  tra- 
ditional and  unalterable  point  of  discipline,  and,  moreover, 
no  penalty  is  ■  mentioned  for  disobedience.     Little  respect, 
probably /was  paid  to  the  new  rule.     The  third  and  fourth 
councils  of  Carthage,  held  in  397  and  398,  passed  numerous 
canons  relating  to  discipline,  prescribing  minutely  the  quali- 
fications and  duties  of  the  clergy,  and  of  the  votaries  of  the 
monastic  profession.     The  absence  from  among  these  canons 
of  any  allusion  to  enforced  celibacy  would  therefore  appear 
to  prove  that  it  was  still  left  to  the  conscience  of  the  indi- 
vidual.    If  this  be  so,  the  triumph  of  the  sacerdotal  party 
was  not  long  delayed,  as  might  be  expected  from  the  rising 
influence  and  authority  of  St.  Augustine,  whose    early  Ma- 
nicheism  led  him,  after  his  conversion,  to  be  one  of  the  most 
enthusiastic  admirers  and  promoters  of  austere  asceticism. 
We  may  not  unreasonably  assume  that  it  was  through  his 
prompting  that  his  friend  St.  Aurelius,  Bishop  of  Carthage, 
at  the  fifth  council  held  in  that  city  in  401,  proposed  a  canon, 
which  was  adopted,  ordering  the  separation  of  the  married 
clergy  of  the  higher  grades  from  their  wives,  under  pain  of 
deprivation  of  office.2    As  before,  the  form  of  the  canon  shows 
it  to  be  an  innovation. 


1  Ab  universis  episcopis  dictum  est : 
Omnibus  placet,  at  episcopi,  presbyteri 
et  diaconi,  vel  qui  sacramenta  con- 
trectant,  pudicitise  custodes  etiam  ab 
uxoribus  se  abstineaut. — Concil.  Car- 
tbag.  II.  can.  2  (Cod.  Eccles.  African, 
can.  3). 

2  Aurelius  episcopus  dixit:  Addi- 
mus  fratres  carissimi  prseterea,cum  de 
quorundam  clericorum,  quamvis  lec- 
torum,  erga  uxores  proprias  inconti- 
nentia referretur,  placuit,  quod  et  in 
diversis  conciliis  firmatum  est,  ut  sub- 


diaconi,  qui  sacra  mysteria  contrec- 
tant,  et  diaconi  et  presbyteri,  sed  et 
episcopi,  secundum  priora  statuta 
etiam  ab  uxoribus  se  contineant,  ut 
tanquam  non  habentes  videantur  esse  : 
quod  nisi  fecerint,  ab  ecclesiastico 
removeantur  officio.  Ceteros  autem 
clericos  ad  hoc  non  cogi,  nisi  maturiori 
a3tate.  Ab  universo  concilio  dictum 
est:  Quse  vestra  sanctitas  est  juste 
moderata,  et  sancta  et  Deo  placita 
sunt,  confirmamus. — Concil.  Carthag. 
V.  c.  3— Cod.  Eccles.  Afric.  c.  25. 
The   councils  thus  alluded  to  are 


78 


ENFORCEMENT    OF    CELIBACY 


That  the  rule  was  positively  adopted  and  frequently  sub- 
mitted to  is  shown  by  St.  Augustine,  who,  in  his  treatise 
against  second  marriages,  states  that,  in  arguing  with  those 
desirous  of  entering  upon  those  unhallowed  unions,  he  was 
accustomed  to  strengthen  his  logic  by  citing  the  continence  of 
the  clergy,  who,  however  unwillingly  they  had  in  most  cases 
been  forced  to  undertake  the  burden,  still,  by  the  aid  of  God, 
were  enabled  to  endure  it  to  the  end.1  Yet  it  is  evident  that 
its  enforcement  was  attended  with  many  difficulties  and  much 
opposition,  for,  twenty  years  later,  at  another  council  of 
Carthage,  we  find  Faustinus,  the  Papal  Legate,  proposing 
that  the  three  higher  orders  shall  be  separated  from  their 
wives,  to  which  the  fathers  of  the  council  somewhat  evasively 
replied  that  those  who  were  concerned  in  the  ministry  of  the 
altar  should  be  chaste  in  all  things.  No  attempt,  however, 
was  apparently  made  to  strengthen  the  resolution  by  affixing 
a  penalty  for  its  infringement  It  was  a  simple  declaratiojnj 
of  opinion,  and  nothing  more.2 


probably  the  Roman  Synods  under 
Damasus  and  Siricius. 

I  give  the  version  most  favored  by 
modern  critics,  bat  it  should  be  ob- 
served that  there  is  doubt  concerning 
several  important  points.  In  the  older 
collections  of  councils  (e.  q.  Surius, 
Ed.  1567,  T.  I.  p.  519-20)  the  canon 
indicates  no  compulsion  for  the  orders 
beneath  the  diaconate,  commencing 
"  Placuit  episcopos  et  presbyteros  et 
diaconos"  and  ending  "  Cseteros  autem 
clericos  ad  hoc  non  cogi  sed  secundum 
uniuscujusque  ecclesise  consuetudi- 
nem  observari  debere,"  and  tins  has 
probability  in  its  favor,  since  the  sub- 
diaconate  was  not  included  in  the  re- 
striction for  nearly  two  centuries  after 
this  period,  and  the  lower  grades  were 
never  subjected  to  the  rule. 

The  expression  "  secundum  priora 
statuta"  is  probably  the  emendation 
of  a  copyist  puzzled  by  the  obscurity 
of  "  secundum  propria  statuta,"  which 
latter  is  the  reading  given  by  Dio- 
nysius  Exiguus  and  followed  by  Su- 
rius. That  it  is  the  correct  one  is 
rendered  almost  certain  by  the  Greek 
version,  which  is  xa-r*  towc  IS'iou?  o^cv; 
(Calixt.  Conjug.  Cleric,  p.  350)  which 


would  seem  to  leave  the  matter  very 
much  to  the  pre-existing  customs  of 
the  individual  churches. 

1  Solemus  eis  proponere  continen- 
tiam  clericorum,  qui  plerumque  ad 
eamdem  sarcinam  subeundam  capi- 
untur  inviti,  eamque  susceptam  usque 
ad  debitam  finem,  Domino  adjuvante, 
perducunt. — De  Adulterin.  Conjug. 
Lib.  ii.  c.  20. 

2  Faustinus  episcopus  ecclesise  Po- 
tentinae,  provinciae  Piceni,  legatus  Ro- 
rnange  ecclesise,  dixit :  Placet  ut  epis- 
copus, presbyter  et  diaconus  vel  qui 
sacramenta  contrectant  pudicitia?  cus- 
todes  ab  uxoribus  se  abstineant.  Ab 
universis  episcopis  dictum  est :  Placet 
ut  in  omnibus  pudicitia  custodiatur 
qui  altari  inserviunt  (Cod.  Eccles. 
African,  can.  iv.). 

That  strict  rules  were  not  enforced 
in  the  African  church  is  rendered 
probable  by  another  circumstance. 
Faustus  the  Manichean,  in  defending 
the  tenets  of  his  sect  on  the  subject 
of  marriage  and  celibacy,  enters  into 
an  elaborate  comparison  of  their  doc- 
trines and  practices  with  those  of  the 
Catholic  church.     In   ridiculing   the 


GRADUAL   OBEDIENCE   OF    WESTERN    EUROPE.       79 

Symptoms  of  similar  difficulty  in  the  rigid  enforcement  of  the 
canon  are  observable  elsewhere.  The  prelates  of  Cis- Alpine 
Gaul,  assembled  in  the  council  of  Turin  in  401,  could  only  be 
brought  to  pronounce  incapable  of  promotion  those  who  con- 
travened the  injunction  which  separated  them  from  their 
wives.1  The  practical  working  of  this  was  to  permit  those  to 
retain  their  wives  who  were  satisfied  with  the  grade  to  which 
they  had  attained.  Thus  the  priest,  who  saw  little  prospect 
of  elevation  to  the  episcopate,  might  readily  console  himself 
with  the  society  of  his  wife,  while  the  powerful  influence  of 
the  wives  would  be  brought  to  bear  against  the  promptings 
of  ambition  on  the  part  of  their  husbands.  The  punishment 
thus  was  heaviest  on  the  lower  grades  and  lightest  on  the 
higher  clergy,  whose  position  should  have  rendered  the  sin 
more  heinous — in  fact,  the  bishop,  to  whom  further  promotion 
was  impossible,  escaped  entirely  from  the  penalty. 

Even  as  late  as  441  the  first  council  of  Orange  shows  hovvj 
utterly  the  rule  had  been  neglected  by  ordering  that  for  thej 
future  no  married  man  should  be  ordained  deacon  without! 
making  promise  of  separation  from  his  wife,  for  contravention] 
of  which  he  was  to  suffer  degradation ;  while  those  who  had 
previously  been  admitted  to  orders  were  only  subjected  to  the 
canon  of  the  council  of  Turin,  incurring  merely  loss  of  pro- 
motion.2 This  evidently  indicates  that  the  regulation  was  a 
novelty,  for  it  admits  the  injustice  of  subjecting  to  the  rigor 
of  the  canon  those  who  had  taken  orders  without  being  aware 
of  the  obligations  incurred;  and  it  is  a  fair  conclusion  to  sup- 
pose that  this  was  a  compromise  by  which  the  existing  clergy 


idea  that  the  Manicheans  prohibited  i  2  Sedit  prseterea  ut  deinceps  non 
marriage  to  their  followers,  he  could  ordinentur  diaeones  conjugati  nisi  qui 
not  have  omitted  the  argument  and  j  prius  conversions  proposito  professi 
contrast  derivable  from  prohibition  ,  fuerint  castitatem. — Concil.  Arausic. 
of    marriage   by   the    Catholics,   had  I  I.  c.  22 


such  prohibition  been  enforced.  His 
omission  to  do  this  is  therefore  a 
negative  proof  of  great  weight. — See 
Augustin.  contra  Faust.  Manich.  Lib. 
xxx.  c.  iv. 


Si  quis  autem  post  acceptam  bene- 
dictionem  leviticam  cum  uxore  sua 
incontinens  invenitur,  ab  officio  abji- 
ciatur. — Ibid.  c.  23. 

De  his  autem  qui  prius  ordinati  hoc 


,  u.       ,  .  ,       .    ,      ,.  ,  ipsum  mciderunt,    raunnatis  synodi 

1  Hi  autem  qui  contra  mterdictum  i   F  -,  . ..  J    . 

j.      ..        ,  .         •    •  l     •     c-y        sequendam  esse  sententiam,  qua  m- 
sunt  ordmati,  vel  in  mmisterio  filios    ,      ^  ,,     .  '  .      T1J. , 


'     ,  ,  bentur  non  ulterius  promoveri — Ibid, 

genuerunt,  ne  ad  majores  gradus  or-         „< 

dinum  permittantur  synodi  decrevit 

auctoritas. — Concil.  Taurinens.  c.  8.   j 


80 


ENFORCEMENT   OF    CELIBACY. 


gave  their  assent  to  the  rule  for  the  benefit  of  their  succes- 
sors, provided  that  they  themselves  escaped  its  full  severity. 
In  fact,  it  seemed  to  be  impossible  to  make  the  church  of 
Gaul  accept  the  rule  of  discipline.  About  459,  we  find  Leo 
I.,  in  answer  to  some  interrogatories  of  Kusticus,  Bishop  of 
Narbonne,  laboriously  explaining  that  bishops  and  priests 
must  treat  their  wives  as  sisters.1  Kusticus  had  evidently 
asked  the  question,  and  Leo  expresses  no  surprise  at  his  igno- 
rance. 

The  date  of  456  is  attributed  to  an  Irish  synod  held  by  St. 
Patrick,  in  which  a  canon  ordering  that  priests  shall  not  offend 
decency  by  their  nakedness,  and  that  their  wives  shall  keep 
the  head  covered,  would  appear  to  prove,  by  the  absence  of 
any  prohibition  of  intercourse,  that  the  Apostle  of  Ireland 
was  unable  to  enforce  upon  his  converts  the  difficult  task  of 
compulsory  asceticism.2 

Even  where  the  authority  of  the  decretals  of  Siricius  and 
Innocent  was  received  with  respectful  silence,  it  was  not 
always  easy  to  enforce  their  provisions.  An  epistle  of  Inno- 
cent to  the  bishops  of  Calabria  shows  that,  within  territory 
depending  strictly  upon  Eome  itself,  a  passive  resistance  was 
maintained,  requiring  constant  supervision  and  interference 
to  render  the  rule  imperative.  Some  priests,  whose  growing 
families  rendered  their  disregard  of  discipline  as  unquestion- 
able as  it  was  defiant,  remained  unpunished.  Either  the 
bishops  refused  to  execute  the  laws,  or  their  sympathies  were 
known  to  be  with  the  offenders,  for  the  pious  layman  whose 
sensibilities  were  wounded  by  the  scandal  felt  himself  obliged 
to  appeal  to  the  Pope.  Innocent  accordingly  ordered  the  ac- 
cused to  be  tried  and  to  be  expelled,  while  he  expressed  no 
little  surprise  at  the  negligence  of  the  prelates  who  were  so 
remiss.3  It  is  more  difficult  to  understand  the  edict  of  420, 
issued  by  Honorius,  to  which  allusion  has  already  been  made 
(p.  54).   This  law  expressly  declares  that  the  desire  for  purity 


1  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  clxvii.  In- 
quis.  iii. 

2  Quicumque  clericus,  ab  hostiario 
usque  ad  sacerdotetn  sine  tunica  vi- 
sus  fuerit,  atque  turpitudineru  ven- 
tris  et  nuditatem  non  tegat,  et  si  non 


more  Romano  capilli  ejus  tonsi  sint, 
et  uxor  ejus  si  non  velato  capite  am- 
bulaverit,  pariter  a  laicis  contemnen- 
tur,etab  ecclesia  separentur. — Synod. 
S.  Patricii,  c.  6. 

3  Innocent.  I.  Epist.  v. 


POPULAR   DESIRE   FOR   CELIBACY.  81 

does  not  require  the  separation  of  wives  whose  marriage  took 
place  before  the  ordination  of  their  husbands. 

These  disconnected  attempts  at  resistance  were  unsuccess- 
ful.    Sacerdotalism  triumphed,  and  the  rule  which  forbade 
marriage  to  those  in  orders,  and  separated  husband  and  wife, 
when  the  former  was  promoted  to  the  ministry  of  the  altar, 
became  irrevocably  incorporated  in  the  canon  law.    Through^) 
out  the  struggle  the  Papacy  had  a  most  efficient  ally  in  the\ 
people.     The  holiness  and  the  necessity  of  absolute  purity  was 
so  favorite  a  theme  with  the  leading  minds  of  the  church,  and 
formed  so  prominent  a  portion  of  their  daily  homilies  and 
exhortations,  that  the  popular  mind  could  not  but  be  deeply) 
impressed  with  its  importance,  and  therefore  naturally  exacted 
of  the  pastor  the  sacrifice  which  cost  so  little  to  the  flockj<Sm 
instance  or  two  occurring  about  this  period  will  show  how 
vigilant  was  the  watch  kept  upon  the  virtue  of  ecclesiastics, 
and  how  summary  was  the  process  by  which  indignation  was 
visited  upon  even  the  most  exalted,  when  suspected  of  a  lapse 
from  the  rigid  virtue  required  of  them.     Thirty  years  after 
the  ordination  of  St.  Brice,  who  succeeded  St.  Martin  in  the 
diocese  of  Tours,  rumor  credited  him  with  the  paternity  of 
a  child  unseasonably  born  of  a  nun.     In  their  wrath  the  citi- 
zens by  common  consent  determined  to  stone  him.     The  saint 
calmly  ordered  the  infant,  then  in  its  thirtieth  day,  to  be 
brought  to  him,  and  adjured  it  in  the  name  of  Christ  to  de- 
clare if  it  were  his,  to  which  the  little  one  firmly  replied, 
"  Thou  art  not  my  father !"     The  people,  attributing  the  mira- 
cle to  magic,  persisted  in  their  resolution,  when  St.  Brice 
wrapped  a  quantity  of  burning  coals  in  his  robe,  and  pressing 
the  mass  to  his  bosom  carried  it  to  the  tomb  of  St.  Martin, 
where  he  deposited  his  burden,  and  displayed  his  robe  unin- 
jured.     Even  this  was   insufficient   to   satisfy  the  outraged 
feelings  of  the  people,  and  St.  Brice  deemed  himself  fortunate 
in  making  his  escape  uninjured,  when  a  successor  was  elected 
to  the  bishopric.1     Somewhat  similar  was  the  case  of  St.  Sim- 
plicius,  Bishop  of  Autun.     Even  as  a  layman,  his  holy  zeal 
had  led  him  to  treat  as  a  sister  his  beautiful  wife,  who  was 


Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  n.  c.  1. 


82         ENFORCEMENT  OF  CELIBACY. 

inspired  with  equal  piety.  On  his  elevation  to  the  episcopate, 
still  confident  of  their  mutual  self-control,  she  refused  to  be 
separated  from  him.  The  people,  scandalized  at  the  impro- 
priety, and  entertaining  a  settled  incredulity  as  to  the  super- 
human virtue  requisite  to  such  restraint,  mobbed  the  bishop's 
dwelling,  and  expressed  their  sentiments  in  a  manner  more 
energetic  than  respectful.  The  saintly  virgin  called  for  a 
portable  furnace  full  of  fire,  emptied  its  contents  into  her  robe, 
and  held  it  uninjured  for  an  hour,  when  she  transferred  the 
ordeal  to  her  husband,  saying  that  the  trial  was  as  nothing  to 
the  flames  through  which  they  had  already  passed  unscathed. 
The  result  with  him  was  the  same,  and  the  people  retired, 
ashamed  of  their  unworthy  suspicions.1  Gregory  of  Tours, 
wmo  relates  these  legends,  was  sufficiently  near  in  point  of 
time  for  them  to  have  an  historical  value,  even  when  divested 
of  their  miraculous  ornaments.  They  bring  before  us  the 
popular  tendencies  and  modes  of  thought,  and  show  us  how 
powerful  an  instrument  the  passions  of  the  people  became, 
when  skilfully  aroused  and  directed  by  those  in  authority. 

The  Western  church  was  thus  at  length  irrevocably  com- 
mitted to  the  strict  maintenance  of  ecclesiastical  celibacy, 
land  the  labors  of  the  three  great  Latin  Fathers,  Jerome,  Am- 
jbrose,  and  Augustine,  were  crowned  with  success.  It  is  per- 
haps worth  while  to  cast  a  glance  at  such  evidences  as  remain 
to  us  of  the  state  of  morals  about  this  period  and  during  the 
fifth  century,  and  to  judge  whether  the  new  rule  of  discipline 
had  resulted  in  purifying  the  church  of  the  corruptions  which 
had  so  excited  the  indignation  of  the*  anchorite  of  Bethlehem, 
and  had  nerved  him  in  his  fierce  contests  with  those  who 
opposed  the  enforced  asceticism  of  the  ministers  of  Christ. 

How  the  morals  of  the  church  fared  during  the  struggle  is 
well  exhibited  in  the  writings  of  St.  Jerome  himself,  as  quoted 
above,  describing  the  unlawful  unions  of  the  agapetae  with 
ecclesiastics  and  the  horrors  induced  by  the  desire  to  escape 
the  consequences  of  incautious  frailty.  Conclusions  not  less 
convincing  may  be  drawn  from  his  assertion  that  holy  orders 


Greg.  Turoii.  de  Glor.  Confess,  c.  76. 


EFFECT    ON    ECCLESIASTICAL    MORALITY.        83 

were  sometimes  assumed  on  account  of  the  superior  opportu- 
nities which  clericature  gave  of  improper  intercourse  with 
women  ;T  and  from  his  description  of  the  ecclesiastics,  who 
passed  their  lives  in  female  companionship,  surrounded  by 
young  female  slaves,  and  leading  an  existence  which  dif- 
fered from  matrimony  only  in  the  absence  of  the  marriage 
ceremony.2 

But  a  short  time  after  the  recognition  of  the  rule  appeared 
the  law  of  Honorius,  promulgated  in  420,  to  which  reference 
has  already  been  made.  It  is  possible  that  the  permission  of 
residence  there  granted  to  the  wives  of  priests  may  have  been 
intended  to  act  as  a  partial  cure  to  evils  caused  by  the  enforce- 
ment of  celibacy ;  and  this  is  rendered  the  more  probable, 
since  other  portions  of  the  edict  show  that  intercourse  with 
improper  females  had  increased  to  such  a  degree  that  the 
censures  of  the  church  could  no  longer  restrain  it,  and  that 
an  appeal  to  secular  interference  was  necessary,  by  which  such 
practices  should  be  made  a  crime  to  be  punished  by  the  civil 
tribunals.3  That  even  this  failed  lamentably  in  purifying  the 
church  may  be  gathered  from  the  proceedings  of  the  pro- 
vincial councils  of  the  period. 

Thus,  in  453,  the  council  of  Anjou  repeats  the  prohibition 
of  improper  female  intimacy,  giving  as  a  reason  the  ruin  con- 
stantly wrought  by  it.  For  those  who  thereafter  persisted  in 
their  guilt,  however,  the  only  penalty  threatened  was  inca- 
pacity for  promotion  on  the  part  of  the  lower  grades,  and 
suspension  of  functions  for  the  higher4  —  whence  we  may 
conclude  that  practically  an  option  was  afforded  to  those  who 
preferred  sin  to  ambition.  The  second  council  of  Aries,  in 
443,  likewise  gives  an  insight  into  the  subterfuges  adopted  to 


1  Sunt  alii  (de  mei  ordinis  homini-  j  honore  censentur,  extranearum  sibi 
bus  loquor)  qui  ideo  presbyteratum  i  mulierum  interdicta  consortia  cog- 
et  diaconatum    ambiunt  ut  mulieres  I  noscant. — Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.  Tit. 


licentius    videant.  —  Epist.   xxn.    ad 
Eustocb.  cap.  28. 

2  Epist.  cxxv.  ad  Rusticum,  cap.  6. 

Eum  qui  probabilem  sseculo  dis- 


ii.  1.  44. 

4  Quia  frequenter  plurimorum  rui- 
nas  sub  hac  occasione  deflemus.  Si 
quis  autem  post  hoc  interdictum  a 
ciplinam  Ygitr^oTor^rrconsortTo"  I  Pvfdic.tis  familiaritatibus  se  revocare 
Sororue  appellations  non  decet.  Qui- i  "oh^nt'  nequaquam  gradu  altiore 
cumque  igitur,  cujuscumque  gradus  I  donabltur;  eJ  si  jam  ordinatus  fuerit, 
sacerdotio   fulciuntur,  vel   clericatus    non  mnnstret— ConciL  Andegav.  c.  4. 


84 


ENFORCEMENT    OF    CELIBACY, 


evade  the  rule  and  to  escape  detection.1  About  this  period  a 
newly-appointed  bishop,  Talasius  of  Angers,  applied  to  Lupus 
of  Troves  and  Euphronius  of  Autun  for  advice  concerning 
various  knotty  points,  among  which  were  the  rules  respecting 
the  celibacy  of  the  different  grades.  In  their  reply  the  pre- 
lates advised  their  brother  that  it  would  be  well  if  the  in- 
crease of  priests'  families  could  be  prevented,  but  that  such 
a  consummation  was  almost  impossible  if  married  men  were 
admitted  to  orders,  and  that  if  he  wanted  to  escape  ceaseless 
wrangling  and  the  scandal  of  seeing  children  born  to  his 
priests,  he  had  better  ordain  only  those  who  were  single.2  The 
subject  was  one  of  endless  effort.  In  fact,  of  the  numerous 
councils  whose  canons  have  reached  us,  held  in  Gaul  and 
Spain  during  the  centuries  which  intervened  until  the  invasion 
of  the  Saracens  and  the  decrepitude  of  the  Merovingian  dy- 
nasty caused  their  discontinuance,  there  is  scarcely  one  which 
did  not  feel  the  necessity  of  legislating  on  this  delicate  mat- 
ter. It  would  be  tedious  and  unprofitable  to  detail  specifi- 
cally the  innumerable  exhortations,  threats,  and  ingenious 
devices  resorted  to  in  the  desperate  hope  of  enforcing  obedi- 
ence to  the  rules  and  of  purifying  the  morals  of  the  clergy. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  constantly  varying  punishments 
enacted,  the  minute  supervision  ordered  over  every  action  of 
the  priesthood,  the  constant   attendance  of  witnesses  whose 

eiseparable  companionship  should  testify  to  the  virtue  of  each 
sclesiastic,  and  the  perpetual  iteration  of  the  rule  in  every 
conceivable  shape,  prove  at  once  the  hopelessness  of  the 
attempt,  and  the  incurable  nature  of  the  disorders  of  which 
the  church  was  at  once  the  cause  and  the  victim.3 


1  Nullus  diaconus  vel  presbyter  vel  j 
episcopus  ad  cellarii  secretum  intro- 
rnittat  puellam  vel  ingenuam  vel  an- 
cillain. — Concil.  Arelatens.  II.  c.  4. 

2  Generationem  vero  filiorum  ab 
his  quos  conjugatos  assumimus, 
melius  esset  si  fieri  possit  arceri : 
quos  melius  est  non  assunri,  quam  de 
his  postea  per  diversa  sensuum  varie- 
tate  certari :  cum  melius  sit  omnes 
disceptationum  causas  excludi  ;  ut 
qui  nou  vult  in  clericatu  generari,  non 
constituat    in    altario    conjugatos. — 


Epist.   Lupi  et  Euphronii.     (Harduin. 
II.  792.) 

3  Whatever  interest  there  might  be 
in  exhibiting  in  detail  the  varying 
legislation  and  the  expedients  of  lenity 
or  severity  by  turns  adopted,  would 
scarcely  repay  the  space  which  it 
would  occupy  or  relieve  the  monotony 
of  retracing  the  circle  in  which  the 
unfortunate  fathers  of  the  church 
perpetually  moved.  I  therefore  con- 
tent myself  with  simply  indicating 
such   canons  of  the   period    as    bear 


CONDITION    OF    SOCIETY. 


85 


Perhaps  this  may  not  move  our  surprise  when  we  glance 
at  the  condition  of  moraljty  existing  throughout  the  Empire 
in  the  second  quarter  of  the  fifth  century,-  as  sketched  by  a 
zealous  churchman  of  the  period.  Salvianus,  Bishop  of  Mar- 
seilles, was  a  native  of  Treves.  Three  times  he  witnessed 
the  sack  of  that  unfortunate  city  by  the  successive  barbarian 
hordes  which  swept  over  Western  Europe,  and  he  lifts  up 
his  voice,  like  Jeremiah,  to  bewail  the  sins  of  his  people,  and 
the  unutterable  misfortunes  which  were  the  punishment  but 
not  the  cure  of  those  sins.  Nothing  can  be  conceived  more 
utterly  licentious  and  depraved  than  the  whole  framework  of 
society  as  described  by  him,  with  such  details  as  preclude  us 
from  believing  that  holy  indignation  or  pious  sensibility  led 
him  to  exaggerate  the  outlines  or  to  darken  the  shades  of  the 
picture.  The  criminal  and  frivolous  pleasures  of  a  decrepit 
civilization  left  no  thought  for  the  absorbing  duties  of  the 
day  or  the  fearful  trials  of  the  morrow.  Unbridled  lust  and; 
unblushing  indecency  admitted  no  sanctity  in  the  marriage: 
tie.  The  rich  and  powerful  established *^arems,  in  the  re- 
cesses of  which  their  wives  lingered,  forgotten,  neglected,  and 
despised.  The  banquet,  the  theatre,  and  the  circus  exhausted] 
what  little  strength  and  energy  were  left  by  domestic  excesses. 
The  poor  aped  the  vices  of  the  rich,  and  hideous  depravityj 
reigned  supreme  and  invited  the  vengeance  of  Heaven.  Such 
rare  souls  as  could  remain  pure  amid  the  prevailing  contami- 
nation would  naturally  take  refuge  in  the  contrast  of  severe 


upon  the  subject,  for  the  benefit  of 
any  student  who  may  desire  to  exa- 
mine the  matter  more  minutely. 

Concil.  Turon.  I.  (ann.  460)  c.  2, 
3.— Agathens.  (506)  c.  9.  — Aureli- 
anens.  I.  (511)  c.  13. — Tarraconens. 
(516)  c.  1.— Gerundens.  (517)  c.  6, 
7.— Epaonens.  (517)  c.  2,  32.— Iler- 
dens.  (523)  c.  2,  5,  15.— Toletan.  II. 
(531)  c.  1,  3.— Aurelianens.  II.  (533) 
c.  8.— Arvernens.  I.  (535)  c.  13,  16.— 
Aurelianens.  III.  (538)  c.  2,  4,  7.— 
Aurelianens.  IV.  (541)  c.  17. — Aure- 
lianens. V.  (549)  c.  3,  4. — Bracarens. 

I.  (563)  c.  15.— Turonens.  II.  (567) 
c.  10,  12,  13,  15,  19,  20.— Bracarens. 

II.  (572)  c.  8,  32,  39.— Autissiodor. 
(578)  c.  21.— Matiscon.  I.  (581)  c.  1, 


2,  3,  11.— Lugdunens.  III.  (583)  c.  1. 
—Toletan.  III.  (589)  c.  5.— Hispalens. 
I.  (590)  c.  3.— Csesaraugustan.  (592) 
c.  1.— Toletan.  (597)  c.  1.— Oscensis 
(598)  c.  2.— Egarens.  (614)  c.  unic. 
— Concil.  loc.  incert.  (a.  615)  c.  8,  12. 
—Toletan.  IV.  (633)  c.  42,  44,  52,  55. 
— Cabilonens  (649)  c.  3.— Toletan. 
VIII.  (653)  c.  4,  5.  6,  7.— Toletan.  IX. 
(655)  c.  10.— Toletan.  XI.  (675)  c.  5. 
— Bracarens.  III.  (675)  c.  4. — Augus- 
todunens.  (690)  c.  10. 

Many  of  these  canons  show  how 
impossible  it  proved  to  maintain  the 
separation  between  the  clergy  and 
their  wives,  while  others  indicate  that 
even  marriage  was  at  times  not  un- 
common within  the  prohibited  orders. 


86    #     ENFORCEMENT  OF  CELIBACY. 

^asceticism,  and  resolutely  seek  absolute  seclusion  from  a 
world  whose  every  touch  was  pollution.  The  secular  clergy, 
however,  drawn  from  the  ranks  of  a  society  so  utterly  cor- 
rupt, and  enjoying  the  wealth  and  station  which  rendered 
their  position  an  object  for  the  ambition  of  the  worldly,  could 
not  avoid  sharing  to  a  great  extent  the  guilt  of  their  flocks, 
whose  sins  were  more  easily  imitated  than  eradicated.  Nor 
I  does  Salvianus  confine  his  denunciations  to  Gaul  and  Spain. 
I  Africa  and  Italy  are  represented  as  even  worse,  the  prevalence 
of  unnatural  crimes  lending  a  deeper  disgust  to  the  rivalry 
in  iniquity.  Eome  was  the  sewer  of  the  nations,  the  centre 
of  abomination  of  the  world,  where  vice  openly  assumed  its 
most  repulsive  form,  and  wickedness  reigned  unchecked  and 
supreme. 

It  is  true  that  the  descriptions  of  Salvianus  are  intended  to 
include  the  whole  body  of  the  people,  and  that  his  special 
references  to  the  church  are  but  few.  Those  occasional  refer- 
ences, however,  are  not  of  a  nature  to  exempt  it  from  sharing 
in  the  full  force  6T  his  indignation.  When  he  pronounces 
the  Africans  to  be  utterly  licentious,  he  excepts  those  who 
have  been  regenerated  in  religion — but  these  he  declares  to 
be  so  few  in  number  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  them  Afri- 
cans. What  hope,  he  asks,  can  there  be  for  the  people  when 
even  in  the  church  itself  the  most  diligent  search  can  scarce 
discover  one  chaste  amid  so  many  thousands:  and  when  im- 
perial Carthage  was  tottering  to  its  fall  under  the  assaults  of 
the  besieging  Yandajs,  he  describes  its  clergy  as  wantoning 
in  the  circus  and  the  theatre — those  without  falling  under  the 
sword  of  the  barbarian,  those  within  abandoning  themselves 
to  sensuality.1  This,  be  it  remembered,  is  that  African  church 
which  had  just  been  so  carefully  nurtured  in  the  purest  asceti- 


1  Quis  non  omues  omnino  Afros  ibi  inter  tot  millia,  si  diligentissime 
generaliter  sciat  impudicos,  nisi  forte  qusereres,  castum  vel  in  ecclesia  in- 
ad  Deum  conversos,  id  est  fide  ac  reli-  {  venire  vix  posses  ? — De  Gubernat.  Dei 
gione  inutatos  ?    Sed  hoc  tarn  rarum  I  Lib.  vir. 

est  et  novum,  quam  ratum  videri  po-  I  Circumsonabant  armis  muros  Cirtse 
test  quemlibet  Gaviuin  non  esse  Gra-  (  Carthaginis  populi  barbarorum,  et  ec- 
viuin,aut  quemcunque  Seium  non  esse  clesia  Carthaginensis  insaniebat  in  cir- 
Seium.  .  .  Quse  spes  in  illo  populo  cis,  luxuriabat  in  theatris  :  alii  foris 
esse  poterat,  ubi  cum  unus  interdum  jugulabantur,  alii  intus  fornicabantur. 
adulter  plebem  ecclesiasticum  polluat,  j  — Ibid.  Lib.  vi. 


CORRUPTION    IN    THE    CHURCH 


87 


cisra  for  thirty  years,  under  the  unremitting  care  of  Augustine, 
who  died  while  his  episcopal  city  of  Hippo  was  encircled  with 
the  leaguer  of  the  Vandals. 

Nor  were  these  disorders  attributable  to  the  irruption  of  the 
Barbarians,  for  Salvianus  sorrowfully  contrasts  their  purity 
of  morals  with  the  reckless  dissoluteness  of  the  Eomans.  The 
respect  for  female  virtue,  inherent  in  the  Teutonic  tribes,  has 
no  warmer  admirer  than  he,  and  he  recounts  with  wonder 
how  the  temptations  of  luxury  and  vice,  spread  before  them 
in  the  wealthy  cities  which  they  sacked,  excited  only  their 
disgust,  and  how,  so  far  from  yielding  to  the  allurements  that 
surrounded  them,  they  sternly  set  to  work  to  reform  the  de-\ 
pravity  of  their  new  subjects,  and  enacted  laws  tp  repress  at  ' 
least  the  open  manifestations  which  shocked  their  untutored 
virtue. 

When  corruption  so  ineradicable  pervaded  every  class, 
we  can  scarce  wonder  that  when  Sixtus  III.  was  tried,  in  440, 
for  the  seduction  of  a  nun,  and  his  accusers  were  unable  to 
substantiate  the  charge,  he  should  have  addressed  the  synod 
assembled  in  judgment  by  repeating  to  them  the  story  of  the 
woman  taken  in  adultery,  and  the  decision  of  Christ.  It  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  a  confession,  but  it  was  undoubtedly  a 
sarcasm  on  the  prelates  around  him,  whom  he  thus  challenged 
to  cast  the  first  stone.1 


1  Expurgat.  Sixti  Papse  c.  vi.  (Har- 
duin.  Concil.  II.  1742). — Pagi  (aim. 
433,  No.  19)  casts  doubt  on  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  proceedings  of  this  trial, 


but  he  adduces  no  reasons,  although 
it  is  difficult  to  assign  any  object  for 
its  manufacture,  if  spurious. 


r,  l  li  i;  a  .;  . 

JNJ  VKksitv    <,|. 

CALIF<).\WL\ 


VI. 

THE  EASTERN  CHURCH. 

During  the  period  which  we  have  been  considering,  there 

had  gradually  arisen  a  divergence  between  the  Christians  of  the 

[East  and  oi  the  West.    The  Arianism  of  Constantius  opposed 

to  the  orthodoxy  of  Constans  lent  increased  development  to 

the  separation  which  the  division  of  the  Empire  had  com- 

Imencecl.  The  rapid  growth  of  the  New  Eome  founded  on 
the  shores  of  the  Bosporus  gave  to  the  East  a  political  me- 
tropolis which  rendered  it  independent  of  the  power  of  Rome, 
and  the  patriarchate  there  erected  absorbed  to  itself  the 
supremacy  of  the  old  Apostolic  Sees,  which  had  previously 
divided  the  ecclesiastical  strength  of  the  East.  In  the  West, 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  unquestionably  the  highest  dignitary, 
and  the  separation  relieving  him  of  the  rivalry  of  prelates 
equal  in  rank,  he  was  enabled  to  acquire  an  authority  over 
the  churches  of  the  Occident  undreamed  of  in  previous  ages. 
As  yet,  however,  there  was  little  pretension  of  extending  that 
.power"  over  the  East,  and  though  the  ceaseless  quarrels  on 
points  of  doctrine  which  raged  in  Antioch,  Constantinople, 
and  Alexandria  enabled  him  frequently  to  intervene  as 
arbiter,  still  he  had  not  yet  assumed  the  tone  of  a  judge 
without  appeal  or  of  an  autocratic  lawgiver. 

Though  five  hundred  years  were  still  to  pass  before  the 
jGreek  schism  formally  separated  Constantinople  from  the 
Icommunion  of  Rome,  yet  already,  by  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century,  the  characteristics  which  ultimately  led  to  that 
schism  were  beginning  to  develop  themselves  with  some  dis- 
tinctness. The  sacerdotal  spirit  of  the  West  showed  itself  in 
the  formalism  which  loaded  religion  with  rules  of  observance 
and  discipline  enforced  with  Roman  severity.    The  inquiring 


CELIBACY    NOT    COMPULSORY.  89 

and  metaphysical  tendencies  of  the  East  discovered  unnum-  i 
bered  doubtful  points  of  belief,  which  were  argued  with  ( 
exhaustive  subtlety  and  supported  by  relentless  persecution. 
However  important  it  might  be  for  any  polemic  to  obtain  for 
his  favorite  dogma  the  assent  of  the  Eoman  bishop,  whose 
decisions  on  such  points  thus  constantly  acquired  increased 
authority,  yet  when  the  Pope  undertook  to  issue  laws  and 
promulgate  rules  of  discipline,  whatever  force  they  had  was 
restricted  to  the  limits  of  the  Latin  tongue.  Accordingly,  wet 
find  that'  the  decretals  of  Siricius  and  Innocent  I.  produced  ncf 
effect  throughout  the  East.  Asceticism  continued  to  nourish 
there  as  in  its  birthplace,  but  it  was  voluntary,  and  there  is} 
no  trace  of  any  official  attempt  to  render  it  universally  im- 
perative. The  canon  of  Nicaea  of  course  was  law,  and  the 
purity  of  the  church  required  its  strict  observance,  to  avoid 
scandals  and  immorality;1  but  beyond  this  and  the  ancient 
rules  excluding  digami  and  prohibiting  marriage  in  orders 
no  general  laws  were  insisted  on,  and  each  province  or  patri- 
archate was  allowed  to  govern  itself  in  this  respect.  How 
little  the  Eastern  prelates  thought  of  introducing  compulsory 
celibacy  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  at  the  second  general  coun- 
cil, held  at  Constantinople  in  381,  only  four  or  five  years 
before  the  decretals  of  Siricius,  there  is  no  trace  of  any  legist 
lation  on  the  subject;  and  this  acquires  increased  significance 
when  we  observe  that  although  this  council  has  always  been 
reckoned  (Ecumenic,  and  has  enjoyed  full  authority  through- 
out the  church  universal,  yet  out  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
bishops  who  signed  the  acts,  but  one — a  Spanish  prelate — 
was  from  the  West. 

This  was  not  merely  an  omission  of  surplusage.     Had  the 


1    The    strictness    with    which    the  forbidden  to  perform  his  priestly  func- 

Nicene  canon  was  enforced  is  shown  tions      The  whole  is  based  on  the  au- 

by  an  epistle  of  St.  Basil,  about  the  thority  of  the  council  of  Nicaea. — "Nee 

middle  of  the  fourth  century,  in  which  primo  nee  soli  (tibi  Paregori)  sancivi- 

he  sternly  reproves   a    priest  named  mus,  non  debere  mulierculas  cohabi- 

Paregorius,  who  at  the  age  of  70  had  tare  viris.     Lege  canonem,  a  Sanctis 

thought  himself  sufficiently  protected  patribus    nostris    in    Nicsena    synodo 

against  scandal  to  allow  to  his  infirmi-  constitutum  :  qui  manifeste  interdixit, 

ties  the  comfort  of  a  housekeeper.  The  ne  quis  mulierculam  subintroductam 

unlucky  female  is  ordered  to  be  forth-  habeat.    Ccelibatus  autem  honestatem 

with  immured  in  a  convent,  and,  until  suam  in  eo  habet,  si  quis  a  nexu  mu- 

this   is   accomplished,  Paregorius    is  lieris  secesserit." 


90 


THE    EASTERN    CHURCH. 


disposition  existed  to  erect  the  custom  of  celibacy  into  a  law, 
there  was  ample  cause  for  legislation  on  the  subject.  Epi- 
phanius,  who  died  in  the  year  403  at  a  very  advanced  age, 
probably  compiled  his  "Panarium"  not  long  after  this  period; 
he  belonged  to  the  extreme  school  of  ascetics,  and  lost  no 
opportunity  of  asserting  the  most  rigid  rule  with  regard  to 
virginity  and  continence,  which  he  considered  to  be  the  base 
and  corner-stone  of  the  church.  While  assuming  celibacy  to 
be  the  rule  for  all  concerned  in  the  functions  of  the  priest- 
hood, he  admits  that  in  many  places  it  was  not  observed,  on 
account  of  the  degradation  of  morals  or  of  the  impossibility 
of  obtaining  enough  ministers  irreprehensible  in  character  to 
satisfy  the  needs  of  the  faithful.1 

That  Epiphanius  endeavored  to  erect  into  a  universal  canon 
rules  only  adopted  in  certain  churches  is  rendered  probable 
by  an  allusion  of  St.  Jerome,  who,  in  his  controversy  with 
Vigilantius,  urged  in  support  of  celibacy  the  custom  of  the 
churches  of  the  East  (or  Antioch),  of  Alexandria,  and  of  Eome.2 
He  thus  omits  the  great  exarchates  of  Ephesus,  Pontus,  and 
Thrace,  as  not  lending  strength  to  his  argument.  Of  these 
the  first  is  perhaps  explicable  by  the  latitudinarianism  of  its 
metropolitan,  Anthony,  Bishop  of  Ephesus.  At  the  council 
of  Constantinople,  held  in  400,  this  prelate  was  accused  of 
many  crimes,  among  which  were  simony,  the  conversion  to 
the  use  of  his  family  of  ecclesiastical  property  and  even  of 
the  sacred  vessels,  and  further,  that  after  having  vowed  sepa- 
ration from  his  wife,  he  had  had  children  by  her.3     Even 


1  After  stating  that  the  church  does 
not  admit  digami  to  orders,  Epipha- 
nius proceeds  :  "  Quin  eum  insuper, 
qui  adhuc  in  matrimonio  degit,  ac 
liberis  dat  operam,  taraetsi  unius  sit 
coni,  presbyteri,  episcopi,  aut  hypodia- 
uxoris  vir,  liequaquam  tamen  ad  dia- 
coni  ordinem  admittit.  Sed  eum  dnn- 
taxat  qui  ab  unius  uxoris  consuetudine 
sese  continuerit  aut  ea  sit  orbatus  ; 
quod  in  illis  locis  prsecipue  fit,  ubi  ec- 
clesiastici  canones  accurate  servantur. 
At  enim  nonnullis  adhuc  in  locis  pres- 
byteri, diaconi  et  hypodiaconi  liberos 
suscipiunt,  Respondeo  ;  non  illud  ex 
canonis  authoritate  fieri,  sed  propter 
homiuum  ignaviam,  qua?  certis  teni- 


poribus  negligenter  agere  ac  connivere 
solet,  ob  nimiam  populi  multitudinem, 
cum  scilicet  qui  ad  eas  se  fnnctiones 
applicent  non  facile  reperiuntur." — 
Hseres.  lix.  c.  4. 

2  Quid  facient  Orientis  ecclesia?  ? 
Quid  iEgypti  et  sedis  Apostolicse,  quae 
aut  virgines  clericos  accipiunt,  aut 
continentes  :  aut  si  uxores  habuerint, 
niariti  esse  desistunt. — Lib.  adv.  Vi- 
gilant, c.  2. 

3  Sextum,  quod  cum  uxori  propria? 
abrenuntiasset,  rursus  illi  congressus 
est,  filiosque  ex  ilia  procreavit. — Ba- 
ron. Annal.  ann.  400,  No.  73. 


CELIBACY    NOT    COMPULSORY.  91 

Egypt,  the  nursery  of  monachism,  affords  a  somewhat  suspi- 
cious example  in  the  person  of  Synesius,  Bishop  of  Ptolemais. 
This  philosophic  disciple  of  Hypatia,  when  pressed  to  accept 
the  bishopric,  declined  it  on  various  grounds,  among  which 
was  his  unwillingness  to  be  separated  from  his  wife,  or  to 
commit  what  was  equivalent  to  adultery  by  living  with  her, 
the  separation  being  particularly  objectionable  to  him,  as 
interfering  with  his  desire  for  numerous  offspring.1  Synesius, 
however,  was  apparently  able  to  reconcile  the  incompatibili- 
ties, for  after  accepting  the  episcopal  office,  we  find,  when  the 
Libyans  invaded  the  Pentapolis  and  he  stood  boldly  forth  to 
protect  his  flock,  that  two  days  before  an  expected  encounter, 
he  confided  to  his  brother's  care  his  children,  to  whom  he 
asked  the  transfer  of  that  tender  fraternal  affection  which  he 
himself  had  always  enjoyed.2 

It  is  easy  to  imagine  what  efforts  were  doubtless  made  to 
extend  the  rule  and  to  render  it  as  imperative  throughout  the 
East  as  it  was  becoming  in  the  West,  when  we  read  the  ex- 
travagant laudations  of  virginity  uttered  about  this  time  by 
St.  John  Chrysostom,  who  lent  the  sanction  of  his  great  name 
and  authority  to  the  assertion  that  it  is  as  superior  to  mar- 
riage as  heaven  is  to  earth,  or  as  angels  are  to  men.3  Strenu- 
ous as  these  efforts  may  have  been,  however,  they  have 
left  no  permanent  record,  and  their  effect  was  short-lived. 
Within  thirty  years  of  the  time  when  Jerome  quoted  the 
example  of  the  eastern  churches  as  an  argument  against  Yigi- 
lantius,  Socrates  chronicles  as  a  novelty  the  introduction  into 
Thessalia  of  compulsory  separation  between  married  priests 
and  their  wives,  which  he  says  was  commanded  by  Heliodo 
rus,  Bishop  of  Trica,  apparently  to  compensate  for  the  ama- 
tory writings  of  his  youth.  The  same  rule,  Socrates  informs 
us,  was  observed  in  Greece,  Macedonia,  and  Thessalonica,  but 
throughout  the  rest,  of  the  East  he  asserts  that  such  separa- 


1  Mihi  igitur  et  Deus  ipse,  et  lex,  et 
sacra  Theophili  manus,  uxorem  dedit. 
Quare  lioc  omnibus  prredico  ac  testor, 
neque  me  ab  ea  prorsus  sejungi  velle 
neque  adulteri  instar  cum  ea  clancu- 
lum  consuescere.  Alteram  eniin  ne- 
quaquam  pium  est,  alteram  illicitum. 
Sed  hoc  utique  cupiam  ac  precabor, 


plurimos  mihi  et  quam  optiraos  esse 
liberos. — Synesii  Epist.  cv. 

2  Ibid.  Epist.  cviii. 

3  Et  si  placet,  quauto  etiam  melior 
sit  addam,  quauto  ccelum  terra,  quauto 
hominibus  angeli. — Lib.  de  Virgin,  c. 
x. 


92  THE    EASTERN    CHURCH. 

tion  was  purely  voluntary,  and  even  that  many  bishops  had 
no  scruple  in  maintaining  ordinary  intercourse  with  their 
wives.1 

The  influence  of  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  and  other  eminent 
churchmen,  the  example  of  the  West,  and  the  efforts  of  the 
Origenians  in  favor  of  philosophic  asceticism,  doubtless  had 
a  powerful  effect  during  the  first  years  of  the  fifth  century  in 
extending  the  custom,  but  they  failed  in  the  endeavor  to  ren- 
der it  universal  and  obligatory,  and  the  testimony  of  Socrates 
shows  how  soon  even  those  provinces  which  adopted  it  in 
Jerome's  time  returned  to  the  previous  practice  of  leaving 
the  matter  to  the  election  of  the  individual.  The  East  thus 
preserved  the  traditions  of  earlier  times,  as  recorded  in  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  and  Canons,  prohibiting  marriage  in 
orders  and  the  ordination  of  digami,  but  imposing  no  com- 
pulsory separation  on  those  who  had  been  married  previous 
to  ordination. 

Even  these  rules  required  to  be  occasionally  enunciated  in 
order  to  maintain  their  observance.  In  530  a  constitution  of 
Justinian  calls  attention  to  the  regulation  prohibiting  the 
marriage  of  deacons  and  subdeacons,  and  in  view  of  the  little 
respect  paid  to  it,  the  Emperor  proceeds  to  declare  the  chil- 
dren of  such  unions  spurious  (not  even  nothi  or  naturales)  and 
incompetent  to  inherit  anything ;  the  wife  is  likewise  incapa- 
citated from  inheritance,  and  the  whole  estate  of  the  father  is 
escheated  to  the  church — the  severity  of  which  may  perhaps 
be  a  fair  measure  of  the  extent  of  the  evil  which  it  was  in- 
tended to  repress.2  Five  years  later  Justinian  recurs  to  the 
subject,  and  lays  down  the  received  regulations  in  all  their 


1  Ipse  porro  in  Thessalia  aliam  con-  '  fuit  Heliodorus  Tricse,  quae  est  urbs 
suetudinem  invaluisse  novi,  ut  ibi  j  illius  regionis  :  cujus  feruntur  libri 
qui  clericus  sit,  si  cum  uxore  quaui  j  amatorii,  quos  cum  esset  adolescens 
cum  esset  laicus  duoebat,  postquam  j  composuit,  eosque  iEthiopica  inscrip- 
clericus  factus  sit,  dormierit,  clericatu  sit.  Eadem  consuetude-  etiam  Thes- 
abdicatus  sit :  id  adeo  cum  omnes  il-  j  salonicse  et  in  Macedonia  et  in  Hel- 
lustres  presbyteri  in  Oriente,  et  epis-  lade  servatur. — Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles. 
copi  etiam,  modo  ipsi  voluerint,  nulla  Lib.  v.  c.  21. 
lege  coacti  ab  uxoribus  abstineant  ;  „  ~  ...  ._  _.  ,  n  mi  .  . 
nam  non  pauci  illorum  dum  episcopa-  !  Constat.  45  Cod.  i.  3  This  law  is 
turn  gerunt,  etiam  liberos  ex  uxore  Vresevved  by  Photius  (Nomoc.  Tit. 
legitimaprocreant.    Consuetudinis  au-    |X\°:  29),  but  Balsamon     bchol.  ad 

tern   in    Thessalia  observat®,  author    ^P0'  rBays  that  li  1S  °mitted  m  the 

,  Basilica. 


LEGISLATION    OF    JUSTINIAN.  93 

details.  Any  one  who  keeps  a  concubine,  who  has  married) 
a  divorced  woman  or  a  second  wife,  is  to  be  held  ineligible  toj 
the  diaconate  or  priesthood.  Any  member  of  those  orders  or 
of  the  subdiaconate  who  takes  a  wife  or  a  concubine,  whether 
publicly  or  secretly,  is  thereupon  to  be  degraded  and  to  lose 
all  clerical  privileges ;  and  though  the  strongest  preference  is 
expressed  for  those  who  though  married  preserve  strict  conti- 
nence, the  very  phrase  employed  indicates  that  this  was  alto- 
gether a  matter  of  choice,  and  that  previous  conjugal  relations 
were  not  subject  to  any  legislative  interference.1  These  same 
regulations  were  repeated  some  ten  years  later  in  a  law,  pro- 
mulgated about  545,  which  was  preserved  throughout  the 
whole  period  of  Greek  jurisprudence,  being  inserted  by  Leo 
the  Philosopher  in  his  Basilica,  quoted  by  Photius  in  the 
Nomocanon,  and  referred  to  as  still  in  force  by  Balsamon  in 
the  thirteenth  century.2  At  the  same  time  Justinian  tacitly 
admits  the  failure  of  previous  efforts  when  he  adds  a  provi- 
sion by  which  an  unmarried  postulant  for  the  diaconate  is 
obliged  to  pledge  himself  not  to  marry,  and  any  bishop  per- 
mitting such  marriage  is  threatened  with  degradation.3 

Bishops,  however,  were  subjected  to  the  full  severity  of  the 
Latin  discipline.  As  early  as  528,  Justinian  ordered  that  no 
one  should  be  eligible  to  the  episcopate  who  was  burdened 
with  either  children  or  grandchildren,  giving  as  a  reason  the 
engrossing' duties  of  the  office,  which  required  that  the  whole 
mind  and  soul  should  be  devoted  to  them,  and  still  more  sig- 
nificantly hinting  the  indecency  of  converting  to  the  use  of 
the  prelate's  family  the  wealth  bestowed  by  the  faithful  on 
the  church  for  pious  uses  and  for  charity.4  It  is  probable 
that  this  was  not  strictly  observed,  for  in  535,  when  repeating 
the  injunction,  and  adding  a  restriction  on  conjugal  inter- 


1  "Nihil  enim  sic  in.  sacris  ordina-    These    provisions  were   repeated   the 
tionihus  diligimus  quam  cum    casti-    following  year  in  Novell,  xxn.  c.  42. 
tate  viventes,  aut  cum  uxoribus  non  |      2  N       n>  cxxm>  c>  12      Balsamon 
cohabitantes  aut  unuis  uxons  virura,  h  ad  Nomoc   TH  {   ^  23)  gtateg 

qui  vel  fuerit  ve    sit   et  ipsam  casti-    J        {    ,    in?erted  ,n  the  Bagm       ^ 
tatem  ehgentem."     Ihe  lector  could,  m..    .        9- 

by  forfeiting  his  prospects  of  promo- 
tion, marry  a  second  time,  if  pressed  j      3  Novell,  cxxm.  c.  14. 
by  overmastering    necessity,  but   he  !      4  c  42  §  L  Cod>  u  3 

was  not  allowed,  under  any  excuse,  to 
take  a  third  wife. — Novell,  vi.  c.  5. — 


1 

94  THE    EASTERN    CHURCH. 

course,  he  intimates  that  no  inquiry  shall  be  made  into  infrac- 
tions previously  occurring,  but  that  it  shall  be  rigidly  enforced 
for  the  future.1  The  decision  was  final  as  regards  the  absence 
of  a  wife,  for  it  was  again  alluded  to  in  548,  and  that  law  is 
carried  through  the  Nomocanon  and  Basilica.2  The  absence 
of  children  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  episcopate,  however,  was 
not  insisted  upon  so  pertinaciously,  for  Leo  the  Philosopher, 
after  the  compilation  of  the  Basilica,  issued  a  constitution 
allowing  the  ordination  of  bishops  who  had  legitimate  off- 
spring, arguing  that  brothers  and  other  relatives  were  equally 
prone  to  withdraw  them  from  the  duties  of  their  position.3 

It  is  not  worth  while  to  enter  into  the  interminable  contro- 
versy respecting  the  council  held  at  Constantinople  in  680, 
the  canons  of  which  were  promulgated  in  692,  and  which  is 
known  to  polemics  as  the  Quinisext  in  Trullo.  The  Greeks 
maintain  that  it  was  (Ecumenic,  and  its  legislation  binding 
upon  Christendom;  the  Latins,  that  it  was  provincial  and 
schismatic ;  but  whether  Pope  Agatho  acceded  to  its  canons 
or  not ;  whether  a  century  later  Adrian  I.  admitted  them,  or 
whether  their  authentication  by  the  second  council  of  Nicaea 
gave  them  authority  over  the  whole  church  or  not,  are  ques- 
tions of  little  practical  importance  for  our  purpose,  for  they 
never  were  really  incorporated  into  the  law  of  the  West,  and 
they  are  only  to  be  regarded  as  forming  a  portion  of  the  re- 
ceived ecclesiastical  jurisprudence  of  the  East.  In  one  sense, 
however,  their  bearing  upon  the  Latin  church  is  interesting, 
for,  in  spite  of  them,  Eome  maintained  communion  with  Con- 
stantinople for  more  than  a  century  and  a  half,  and  the  schism 
which  then  took  place  arose  from  altogether  different  causes. 

(In  the  West,  therefore,  celibacy  was  only  a  point  of  discipline, 
of  no  doctrinal  importance,  and  not  a  matter  of  heresy,  as  we 
shall  see  it  afterwards  become  under  the  stimulus  afforded  by 
Protestant  controversialists. 

The  canons  of  the  Quinisext  are  very  full  upon  all  the 
questions  relating  to  celibacy,  and  show  that  great  relaxation 


1  Novell,  vi.  c.  1. 

2  Novell,  cxxxvn.  c.  2.— Balsaraon.     Schol.  ad  Nouiocan.  Tit.  i.  c.  23. 

3  Leonis.  Novell.  Constit.  n. 


THE  QUINISEXT  IN  TRULLO.  95 

had  occurred  in  enforcing  the  regulations  embodied  in  the 
laws  of  Justinian.  Digami  must  have  become  numerous  in 
the  church,  for  the  prohibition  of  their  ordination  is  renewed, 
and  all  who  had  not  released  themselves  from  such  forbidden 
unions  by  June  15th  of  the  preceding  year  are  condemned  to 
suffer  deposition.  So  marriage  in  orders  had  evidently  be- 
come frequent,  for  all  guilty  of  it  are  enjoined  to  leave  their 
wives,  when,  after  a  short  suspension,  they  are  to  be  restored 
to  their  position,  though  ineligible  to  promotion.1  A  much 
severer  punishment  is,  however,  provided  for  those  who 
should  subsequently  be  guilty  of  the  same  indiscretion;  for 
all  such  infractions  of  the  rule  are  visited  with  absolute 
deposition2 — thus  proving  that  it  had  fallen  into  desuetude, 
since  those  who  sinned  after  its  restoration  were  regarded  as 
much  more  culpable  than  those  who  had  merely  transgressed 
an  obsolete  law.  Even  bishops  had  neglected  the  restrictions! 
imposed  upon  them  by  Justinian,  for  the  council  refers  to 
most  pious  prelates  in  Africa,  Libya,  and  elsewhere,  who  lived 
openly  with  their  wives;  and  although  this  is  prohibited  for 
the  future  under  penalty  of  deposition,  and  although  all  wives 
of  those  promoted  to  the  episcopate  are  directed  to  be  placed 
in  nunneries  at  a  distance  from  their  husbands,  yet  the  re- 
markable admission  is  made  that  this  is  done  for  the  sake  of 
the  people,  who  regarded  such  things  as  a  scandal,  and  not 
for  the  purpose  of  changing  that  which  had  been  ordained  b}r 
the  Apostles.3 

With  regard  to  the  future  discipline  of  the  great  body  of 
the  clergy,  the  council,  after  significantly  acknowledging  that 
the  Eoman  church  required  a  promise  of  abstinence  from 
married  candidates  for  the  diaconate  and  priesthood,  proceeds, 
to  state  that  it  desires  to  adhere  to  the  Apostolic  canon  by 
keeping  inviolate  the  conjugal  relations  of  those  in  holy 
orders,  and  by  permitting  them  to  associate  with  their  wives 
only  stipulating  for  continence  during  the  time  devoted  to 
the  ministry  of  the  sacraments.     To  put  an  end  to  all  opposi 


1  Quinisext.  can.  3.  I  tuta  sunt,  sed  populorum  salutis  et 

2  T,  .  ■,         ,,  |  ad    meliora   progressionis   curam   ge- 

;  rentes,  et  ne  status  ecclesiasticus  ullo 

3  Ibid.  can.  12,  48. — "Hoc  autem  probroefficiatur."  The  bisbops against 
dicimus  non  ad  ea  abolenda  et  ever-  whom  this  is  directed  are  styled  &«- 
tenda   quae    Apostolice  antea   consti-    ^tfTaroi  rpoftyoi. 


96 


THE    EASTERN    CHURCH. 


tion  to  this  privilege,  deposition  is  threatened  against  those 
who  shall  presume  to  interfere  between  the  clergy  and  their 
wives,  and  likewise  against  all  who,  under  pretence  of  reli- 
gion, shall  put  their  wives  away.  At  the  same  time,  in  order 
to  promote  the  extension  of  the  church,  in  the  foreign  pro- 
vinces this  latter  penalty  is  remitted,  as  a  concession  to  the 
prejudices  of  the  "Barbarians."1 

The  Eastern  church  thus  formally  and  in  the  most  solemn 
manner  recorded  its  separate  and  independent  discipline  on 
this  point,  and  refused  to  be  bound  by  the  sacerdotalism  of 
Rome.  It  thus  maintained  the  customs  transmitted  from  the 
early  period,  when  asceticism  had  commenced  to  complicate 
the  simplicity  of  Apostolic  Christianity,  but  it  shrank  from 
carrying  out  the  principles  involved  to  their  ultimate  result, 
as  was  sternly  attempted  by  the  inexorable  logic  of  Rome. 
The  system  thus  laid  down  was  permanent,  for  the  Quinisext. 
was  received  unquestioningly  as  a  general  council,  and  its 
.decrees  were  authoritative  and  unalterable.  It  is  true  that 
in  the  confusion  of  the  two  following  centuries  a  laxity  of 
practice  gradually  crept  in,  by  which  those  who  desired  to 
marry  were  admitted  to  holy  orders  while  single,  and  were 
granted  two  years  after  ordination  during  which  they  were  at 
liberty  to  take  wives,  but  this  was  acknowledged  to  be  an 
abuse,  and  about  the  year  900  it  was  formally  prohibited  by 
a  constitution  of  Leo  the  Philosopher.2     Thus  restored,  the 


1  Quinisext.  c.  13,  30.— The  thirty- 
third  canon  shows  how  universally 
sacerdotal  marriage  was  practised  in 
some  regions,  when  we  learn  that  in 
Armenia  the  Levitical  custom  of  the 
Jews  was  imitated,  in  the  creation  of 
a  sacerdotal  caste,  transmitted  from 
father  to  son,  and  confined  to  the 
priestly  families.  This  the  council 
condemns,  and  orders  that  all  worthy 
of  ordination  shall  he  eligible. 

2  Consuetudo  qua?  in  prsesenti  obti- 
net,  iis  quibus  matrimonio  conjungi 
in  animo  est  concedit  ut  antequam 
uxorem  duxerint,  sacerdotes  fieri  pos- 
sint,  et  deinde  biennium  ad  perficien- 
dam  voluntatem  jungi  matrimonio 
volenti  prsestituit.  Id  igitur  quia  in- 
decorum esse  videmus,  jubenius  ut  ad 


vetus  ecclesise  et  antiquitus  traditum 
prsescriptum  dehinc  creationes  proce- 
dant. — Leonis  Novell.  Constit.  nr. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  this  custom 
resulted  from  the  iconoclastic  schism 
of  Leo  the  Isaurian  and  Constantine 
Copronymus  which  occupied  nearly 
the  whole  of  the  eighth  century. 
These  emperors  found  their  most  un- 
yielding enemies  in  the  monks.  In 
the  savage  persecutions  which  dis- 
graced the  struggle,  Constantine  en- 
deavored to  extirpate  monachism 
altogether.  The  accounts  which  his 
adversaries  have  transmitted  of  the 
violence  and  cruelties  which  he  per- 
petrated are  doubtless  exaggerated, 
but  there  is  likelihood  that  his  efforts 
to  discountenance  celibacy,  as  the 
foundation  of  the  obnoxious  institu- 


THE    NESTORIANS.  97 

Greek  church  has  preserved  its  early  traditions  unaltered  tol 
the  present  day.  Marriage  in  orders  is  not  permitted,  nor  are 
digami  admissible,  but  the  lower  grades  of  the  clergy  are  free 
to  many,  nor  are  they  separated  from  their  wives  when  pro- 
moted to  the  sacred  functions  of  the  diaconate  or  priesthood. 
The  bishops  are'  selected  from  the  regular  clergy  or  monks, 
and,  being  bound  by  the  vow  of  chastity,  are  of  course  unmar- 
ried and  unable  to  marry.  Thus  the  legislation  of  Justinian 
is  practically  transmitted  to  the  nineteenth  century. 

One  branch  of  the  Eastern  church,  however,  relaxed  these 
rules.  In  431,  Nestorius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  was 
excommunicated  for  his  heretical  subtleties  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  Godhead  in  Christ.  Driven  out  from  the  Empire  by 
the  orthodox  authorities,  his  followers  spread  throughout 
Mesopotamia  and  Persia,  where,  by  the  end  of  the  century, 
their  efforts  had  gradually  converted  nearly  the  whole  popu- 
lation. About  the  year  480,  Barsuma,  metropolitan  of  N isibi, 
added  to  his  Nestorian  heresy  the  guilt  of  marrying  a  nun, 
when  to  justify  himself  he  assembled  a  synod  in  which  the 
privilege  of  marriage  was  granted  not  only  to  priests,  but 
even  to  monks.  In  485,  Babueus,  Patriarch  of  Seleucia,  held 
a  council  which  excommunicated  Barsuma  and  condemned 
his  licentious  doctrines;  but,  about  ten  years  later,  a  subse- 
quent patriarch,  Babeus,  in  the  council  of  Seleucia,  obtained 
the  enactment  of  canons  conferring  the  privilege  of  marriage 
on  all  ranks  of  the  clergy,  from  monk  to  patriarch.  Some 
forty  years  later  a  debate  recorded  between  the  Patriarch 
Mar  Aba  and  King  Chosroes  shows  that  repeated  marriages 
were  common  among  all  orders,  but  Mar  Aba  subsequently 
issued  a  canon  depriving  patriarchs  and  bishops  of  the  right, 


tion,  are  correctly  reported.    "Publice  the  monks  were  tortured,  others  fled 

defamavit    et    dehonestavit   habitum  to  the  mountains  and  deserts,  where 

monachorum   in   hippodromo,  prseci-  they  suffered  every  extremity,  while 

piens  unumquemque  monachum  ma-  others    again    succumbed    to   threats 

nutenere  mulierem,  et  taliter  transire  and  temptations,  and   were   publicly 

per  hippodromum,  suraptis  injuriis  ab  married — "  alii  corporeis  voluptatibus 

omni  populo  cumulatis"  (Baronii  An-  addicti,    suas    etiam    uxores    circum- 

nal.  ann.  766,  No.  1).     He  ejected  the  ducere  non  erubescebant"  (Ibid.  JNTo. 

monks  from  the  monasteries,  which  28,  29). 
he   turned   into   barracks ;    some   of 

7 


98  THE   EASTERN    CHURCH. 

and  subjecting  them  to  the  rules  of  the  Latin  and  Greek 
churches.1 

The  career  of  the  Nestorians  shows  that  matrimony  is  not 
incompatible  with  mission-work,  for  they,  were  the  most  suc- 
cessful missionaries  on  record.  They  penetrated  throughout 
India,  Tartary,  and  China.;  In  the  latter  empire  they  lasted 
until  the  thirteenth  century ;  while  the  Portuguese  discoverers 
in  the  fifteenth  century  found  them  flourishing  in  Malabar. 
So  numerous  were  they  that  during  the  existence  of  the 
Latin  kingdom  of  Jerusalem  they  are  described,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  Monophysite  sect  of  the  Jacobines,  as  exceeding 
in  numbers  the  inhabitants  of  the  rest  of  Christendom.2  That 
after  success  so  marked  they  should  dwindle  to  their  present 
insignificant  condition,  and  that  so  large  a  portion  of  mankind 
should  revert  to  the  darkness  of  Mahometanism  and  Heathen- 
ism after  receiving  the  benefits  of  even  imperfect  Christianity, 
is  one  of  the  insoluble  problems  of  Providence. 

Another  segment  of  the  Eastern  church  may  properly  re- 
ceive attention  here.  The  Abyssinians  and  Coptic  Christians 
of  Egypt  can  scarcely  in  truth  be  considered  a  part  of  the 
Greek  church,  as  they  are  monophysite  in  belief,  and  have 
in  many  particulars  adopted  Jewish  customs,  such  as  circum- 
cision, &c.  Their  observances  as  regards  marriage,  however, 
tally  closely  with  the  canons  of  the  Quinisext,  except  that 
bishops  are  permitted  to  retain  their  wives.  In  the  sixteenth 
century,  Bishop  Zaga  Zabo,  who  was  sent  as  envoy  to  Portugal 
by  David,  King  of  Abyssinia,  left  behind  him  a  confession  of 
faith  for  the  edification  of  the  curious.  In  this  document  he 
describes  the  discipline  of  his  church  as  strict  in  forbidding 
the  clericature  to  illegitimates ;  marriage  is  not  dissolved  by 
ordination,  but  second  marriage,  or  marriage  in  orders,  is 
prohibited,  except  under  dispensation  from  the  Patriarch,  a 
favor  occasionally  granted  to  magnates  for  public  reasons. 
Without  such  dispensation,  the  offender  is  expelled  from  the 


1  For  these  details  from  the  collec-  I  2  Hi  oinnes  Nestoriam  .  .  .  cum 
tion  of  Asseman  I  am  indebted  to  the  |  Jacobinis  longe  plures  esse  dicuntur 
Abate  Zaccaria's  Nuova  Giustifica-  j  quam  Latini  et  Grseci. — Jac.  de  Vit- 
zione  del  Celibato  Sacro,  pp.  129-30.    |  riaco  Hist.  Hierosol.  cap.  Ixxvi. 


ABYSSINIA 


99 


priesthood,  while  a  bishop  or  other  ecclesiastic  convicted  of 
having  an  illegitimate  child  is  forthwith  deprived  of  all  his 
benefices  and  possessions.'  These  rules,  I  presume,  are  still 
in  force.  A  recent  traveller  in  those  regions  states  that  "if 
a  priest  be  married  previous  to  his  ordination,  he  is  allowed 
to  remain  so ;  but  no  one  can  marry  after  having  entered 
the  priesthood" — while  a  mass  of  superstitious  and  ascetic 
observances  has  overlaid  religion,  until  little  trace  is  left  of 
original  Christianity.2 


1  Calixt.  de  Conjug.  Cleric,  p.  415. 

2  Parkyns'  Life  in  Abyssinia,  chap, 
xxxi. — Mr.  Parkyns   sums  up  about 


26*0  fast  days  in  the  year,  most  of 
them  much  more  rigid  than  those 
observed  in  the  Catholic  church. 


XJ  X    il  i 

UNIVKKSITY    ()Jt 

CALIFORNIA 


VII. 


MONACHISM. 


The  Monastic  Orders  occupy  too  prominent  a  place  in 
ecclesiastical  history,  and  were  too  powerful  an  instrument 
both  for  good  and  evil,  to  be  passed  over  without  some  cur- 
sory allusion,  although  the  secular  clergy  is  more  particularly 
the  subject  of  the  present  sketch;  and  the  rise  and  progress 
of  monachism  is  a  topic  too  extensive  in  its  details  to  be  tho- 
roughly considered  in  the  space  which  can  be  allotted  to  it. 

Allusions  have  been  made  in  a  previous  section  to  the  vows 
which,  at  an  early  period  in  the  history  of  the  church,  had 
already  become  common  among  female  devotees.  In  fact  an 
order  of  widows,  employed  in  charitable  works  and  supported 
from  the  offerings  of  the  faithful,  was  apparently  one  of  the 
primitive  institutions  of  the  Apostles.  To  prevent  any  con- 
flict between  the  claims  of  the  world  and  of  the  church,  St. 
Paul  directs  that  they  shall  be  childless  and  not  less  than  sixty 


years  of 


so  that 


on 


the 


one 


hand  there  might  be  no 


neglect  of  the  first  duty  which  he  recognized  as  owing  to  the 
family,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  devotee  should  be 
tempted  by  the  flesh  to  quit  the  service  which  she  had  under- 
taken.1 

This  admirable  plan  may  be  considered  the  germ  of  the  count- 
less associations  by  which  the  church  has  in  all  ages  earned 
the  gratitude  of  mankind  by  giving  to  Christianity  its  truest 
practical  exposition.  It  combined  a  refuge  for  the  desolate  with 
a  most  efficient  organization  for  spreading  the  faith  and  admin- 


1  I.  Tim.  v.  3-14.  cf.  Act.  IX. 
39-41.  In  process  of  time,  it  even 
became  a  question  whether  these 
women  were  not  to  be  regularly 
ordained — an  error  forbidden  by  the 


council  of  Laodicsea  (Can.  xi.)  in 
372. — By  the  council  of  Chalcedon, 
however,  in  451  (Can.  xv.),  it  appears 
that  deaconesses  were  then  formally 
ordained  by  the  imposition  of  hands. 


DEVOTEES    IN    THE    PRIMITIVE    CHURCH.       101 

istering  charity ;  and  there  was  no  thought  of  marring  its 
utility  by  rendering  it  simply  an  instrument  for  exaggerating 
and  propagating  asceticism.  St.  Paul,  indeed,  expressly  com- 
mands the  younger  ones  to  marry  and  bring  up  children;1 
and  he  could  little  have  anticipated  the  time  when  this  order 
of  widows,  so  venerable  in  its  origin  and  labors,  would,  by 
the  caprice  of  ascetic  progress,  come  to  be  regarded  as  de- 
graded in  comparison  with  the  virgin  spouses  of  Christ,  who 
selfishly  endeavored  to  purchase  their  own  salvation  by  shun- 
ning all  the  duties  imposed  on  them  by  the  Creator.2 

In  the  early  church,  as  has  been  already  shown,  all  vows 
of  continence  and  dedication  to  the  service  of  God  were  a 
matter  of  pure  volition,  not  only  as  to  their  inception, 
but  also  as  to  their  duration.  The  male  or  female  devotee 
was  at  liberty  to  return  to  the  world  and  to  marry  at  any 
time  ;J  although,  during  the  purer  periods  of  persecution,  such 
conduct  was  doubtless  visited  with  disapprobation  and  was 
attended  with  loss  of  reputation.  As,  moreover,  there  was 
no  actual  segregation  from  the  world  and  no  sundering  of 
family  ties,  there  was  no  necessity  for  special  rules  of  disci- 


1  Volo  ergo  juniores  [viduas]  nn-  I  Even  in  the  time  of  St.  Augustine 
bere,  filios  procreare,  matresfarailias  monks  were  frequently  married,  as  we 
esse,  null  am  occasionem  dare  adver-  learn  from  his  remarks  concerning  the 
sario. — I.  Tim.  v.  14.  heretics  who  styled  themselves  Apos- 

„  „      T  _   _,  .  .     ,  ..  tolici  and  who  srloried  in  their  supe- 

2  See  Leon  I  Epist  lxxxvn.  cap.  K  aMMagmLu  ^  qUod  iu  suam 
A.  (Hardum.  1.  l/7o.)  |  coramimionem  non  reciperent  utentes 

3  If  further  proof  of  this  he  re-  conjugibus  et  res  proprias  possiden- 
quired,  beyond  what  has  already  been  ;  tes  ;  quales  habet  Catholica  [ecclesia] 
incidentally  adduced,  it  is  to  be  found  ,  et  monachos  et  clericos  plurimos." — 
in  the  19th  canon  of  the  council  of  i  Augustin.  de  Haeresib.  No.  xl. 
Ancyra,  held  about  the  year  314.  By!  Even  Epiphanius,  the  ardent  ad - 
this,  the  vow  of  celibacy  or  virginity  !  mirer  of  virginity,  when  controvert- 
when  broken  only  rendered  the  of-  !  ing  the  errors  of  the  same  sect,  de- 
fender incapable  of  receiving  holy  !  clares  that  those  who  cannot  persevere 
orders.  He  was  to  be  treated  as  a  ;  in  their  vows  had  better  marry  and 
"  digamus,"  showing  evidently  that  \  reconcile  themselves  by  penitence  to 
no  punishment  was  inflicted,  beyond  ;  the  church  rather  than  to  sin  in  secret 
the  disability  which  attached  tosecond  j  — "  Melius  est  lapsum  a  cursu  palara 
marriages.  j  sibi  uxorem  sumere  secundum  legem 

In  365  the  Emperor  Valens  ordered  |  et  a  virginitate  multo  tempore  pceni- 
the  violent  removal  and  restoration  to  j  tentiamagereetsicrursusadecclesiam 
secular  life  of  those  who  had  entered  j  induci,  etc." — Panar.  Hasres.  lxi. 
monasteries  in  order  to  escape  the  '  We  shall  see  hereafter  how  long  it 
duties  which  they  owed  to  the  state  I  took  to  enforce  the  strict  segregation 
(see  ante,  p.  59),  and  in  376  he  per-  I  of  the  cenobite  from  the  world, 
secuted  those  who  refused  obedience.  ! 


102  MONACHISM. 

pline.  "When,  under  the  Decian  persecution,  Paul  the  The- 
bsean,  and  shortly  afterwards  St.  Antony,  retired  to  the  desert 
in  order  to  satisfy  a  craving  for  ascetic  mortification  which 
could  only  be  satiated  by  solitude,  and  thus  unconsciously 
founded  the  vast  society  of  Egyptian  cenobites,  they  gave  rise 
to  what  at  length  became  a  new  necessity.'  The  associations 
which  gradually  formed  themselves  required  some  govern- 
ment, and  the  institution  of  monachism  became  too  important 
a  portion  of  the  church,  both  in  numbers  and  influence,  to 

I  remain  long  without  rules  of  discipline  to  regulate  its  piety 
and  to  direct  its  powers. 

A  portion  of  the  church,  adhering  to  ancient  tradition, 
looked  reprovingly  on  these  exaggerated  pietistic  vagaries. 
Lactantius,  for  instance,  in  a  passage  written  subsequent  to 
(the  conversion  of  Constantine,  earnestly  denounces  the  life  of 

I  a  hermit  as  that  of  a  beast  rather  than  of  a  man,  and  urges 
that  the  bonds  of  human  society  ought  not  to  be  broken,  since 
man  cannot  exist  without  his  fellows.2     All  such  protests, 

t  however,  were  vain.     The  tide  had  fairly  set  in,  and  we  have 

\seen  that  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  the 
increasing  multitudes  who  sought  refuge  in  the  cell  of  the 
anchorite  had  already  attracted  the  imperial  attention  and  had 
called  for  restrictive  measures.  It  is  easy  to  understand  the 
impulsion  which  drove  so  many  to  abandon  the  world.  No 
small  portion  of  pastoral  duty  consisted  in  exhortations  to 
virginity,  the  praises  of  which  were  reiterated  with  ever 
increasing  vehemence,  and  the  rewards  of  which,  in  this 
world  and  the  next,  were  magnified  with  constantly  augment- 
ing promises.  Indeed,  a  perusal  of  the  writings  of  that  age 
seems  to  render  it  difficult  to  conceive  how  any  truly  devout 


1  St.  Jerome  vindicates  for  Paul  the  j  was  unknown  in  Palestine  and  Syria 
priority  which  was  commonly  ascrib-  I  until  it  was  introduced  thereby  Hila- 
ed  to  Antony,  but  he  fully  admits  that  j  rion,  a  disciple  of  St.  Antony. — Vit. 
the  latter  is  entitled  to  the  credit  of 
popularizing  the  practice. — "  Alii,  au- 
tem,  in  quam  opinionem  vulgus  ornne 


consentit,  asserunt  Antonium  hujus 
propositi  caput,  quod  ex  parte  verum 
est :  non  enim*  tarn  ipse  ante  omnes 
fuit,  quam  ab  eo  omnium  incitata  sunt 
studia,"  etc. — Hieron.  Vit.  Pauli  cap. 
1. — Epist.  xxn.  ad  Eustoch.  cap.  3(3. 
Jerome  also  asserts  that  monachism 


Hilarion.  cap.  14. 

2  Huic  vero  qui  se  ipse  dissociat  ac 


secernita  corpore,nonrituhominis  sed 
ferarum  more  vivendum  est.  Quod 
fieri  si  non  potest,  retinendum  est  igi- 
tur  omni  modo  vinculum  societatishu- 
manse,  quia  homo  sine  homine  nullo 
modo  potest  vivere.  —  Instit.  Divin. 
Lib.  vi.  cap.  10.— Cf.  c.  17. 


EARLY    SYSTEMS    OF    DISCIPLINE.  103 

soul  could  remain  involved  in  worldly  duties  and  pleasures, 
when  the  abandonment  of  all  the  ties  and  responsibilities  im- 
posed by  Providence  was  represented  as  rendering  the  path 
to  heaven  so  much  shorter  and  more  certain,  and  when  every 
pulpit  resounded  with  perpetual  amplifications  of  the  one 
theme.  Equally  efficacious  with  the  timid  and  slothful  was! 
the  prospect  of  a  quiet  retreat  from  the  confusion  and  strifef 
which  the  accelerating  decline  of  the  empire  rendered  every1 
day  wilder  and  more  hopeless ;  while  the  crushing  burdens  of 
the  state,  in  spite  of  all  the  efforts  of  the  civil  power,  drove 
many  to  seek  their  escape  in  the  exemptions  accorded  to 
those  connected  with  the  church.  When  to  these  classes 
are  added  the  penitents — prototypes  of  St.  Mary  of  Egypt, 
who  retired  to  the  desert  as  the  only  refuge  from  her  profli- 
gate life,  and  for  seventeen  years  waged  an  endless  struggle 
with  the  burning  passions  which  she  could  control  but  could 
not  conquer — it  is  not  difficult  to  estimate  how  vast  were 
the  multitudes  unconsciously  engaged  in  laying  the  foun- 
dations of  that  monastic  structure  which  was  eventually 
to  overshadow  all  Christendom.1  Indeed,  even  the  church 
itself  at  times  became  alarmed  at  the  increasing  tendency,  as 
when  the  council  of  Saragossa,  in  381,  found  it  necessary  td 
denounce  the  practice  of  ecclesiastics  abandoning  their  func- 
tions and  embracing  the  monastic  life,  which  it  assumes  was 
done  from  unworthy  motives.2 

Certain  definite  rules  for  the  governance  of  these  crowds  of 
all  stations,  conditions,  and  characters  became  of  course  neces- 
sary, but  it  was  long  before  they  assumed  an  irrevocable  and 
binding  force.  The  treatise  which  is  known  as  the  rule  of  St. 
Oriesis  is  only  a  long  and  somewhat  mystic  exhortation  to 
asceticism.  That  which  St.  Pachomius  is  said  to  have  received 
from  an  angel  is  manifestly  posterior  to  the  date  of  that  saint, 


1  As  early.as  the  commencement  of  |  Faust.  Manich.  Lib.  xxx.  c.  iv. 
the  fourth  century,  we  find  Faustus,  j      2  p  luxnm  vanitatemque  pra?_ 

m  hi.  « tu  quoque  '  defence  of  Mam-  iptam._Concil.  C<esaraug.  I.  ann. 

oheism,  asserting  that  in  the  Christian  ,gg ^    vi._Disobedje„ce  to  the  pro- 
churches  the  number  of  professed  vir-  ;  hibition  .g  tkreatened  with  prolonged 


gins    exceeded    that    of    women    not 
bound   by    vows. — Augustin.    contra 


suspension  from  communion. 


104 


MONACHISM 


and  probably  belongs  to  the  commencement  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. Minute  as  are  its  instructions,  and  rigid  as  are  its 
injunctions  respecting  every  action  of  the  cenobite,  yet  it 
fully  displays  the  voluntary  nature  of  the  profession  and  the 
lightness  of  the  bonds  which  tied  the  monk  to  his  order.  A 
stranger  applying  for  admission  to  a  monastery  was  exposed 
only  to  a  probation  of  a  few  days,  to  test  his  sincerity  and  to 
prove  that  he  was  not  a  slave ;  no  vows  were  imposed,  his 
simple  promise  to  obey  the  rules  being  only  required.  If  he 
grew  tired  of  ascetic  life,  he  departed,  but  he  could  not  be 
again  taken  back  without  penitence  and  the  consent  of  the 
archimandrite.1  Even  female  travellers  applying  for  hospi- 
tality were  not  refused  admittance,  and  an  inclosure  was  set 
apart  for  them,  where  they  were  entertained  with  special 
honor  and  attention;  a  place  was  likewise  provided  for  them 
in  which  to  be  present  at  vespers.2 

A  similar  system  of  discipline  is  manifested  in  the  detailed 
statement  of  the  regulations  of  the  Egyptian  monasteries  left 
us  by  John  Cassianus,  Abbot  of  St.  Victor  of  Marseilles,  who 
died  in  448.  No  vows  or  religious  ceremonies  were  required 
of  the  postulant  for  admission.  He  was  proved  by  ten  days' 
waiting  at  the  gate,  and  a  year's  probation  inside,  yet  the  slen- 
der tie  between  him  and  the  community  is  shown  by  the  pre- 
servation of  his  worldly  garments,  to  be  returned  to  him  in 
case  of  his  expulsion  for  disobedience  or  discontent,  and  also 
by  the  refusal  to  receive  from  him  the  gift  of  his  private 
fortune — although  no  one  within  the  sacred  walls  was  permit- 
ted to  call  the  simplest  article  his  own — lest  he  should  leave 
the  convent  and  then  claim  to  revoke  his  donation,  as  not 
unfrequently  happened  in  institutions  which  neglected  this 
salutary  rule.3     So,  in  a  series  of  directions  for  cenobitic  life, 


1  Regul.  S.  Pachora.  c.  26,  79,  95.— 
Qui  absque  ordine  fratrum  recesserit 
et  postea  acta  poenitentia  redierit,  non 
erit  in  ordine  suo  absque  raajoris  im- 
perio.  ...  Si  quis  promiserit  obser- 
vare  regulas  monasterii,  et  facere  coe 
perit,  easque  dimiserit,  postea  autem 
reversus  egerit  poenitentiam,  obten- 
dens  infirmitatem  corpusculi,  &c. 

2  Ibid.  c.  29.    This  is  a  particularly 


striking  contrast  with' mediaeval  mon- 
achisni,  which,  as  we  shall  see  here- 
after, considered  the  sacred  precincts 
polluted  by  the  foot  of  woman. 

3  Cassian.  de  Csenob.  Instit.  Lib. 
iv.  c.  3,  4,  5,  6,  13.  —  Cassianus  de- 
clares chastity  to  be  the  virtue  by 
which  men  are  rendered  most  like 
angels. 

How  completely  the  system  of  reli- 


NECESSITY   OF    ABSOLUTE    RULES. 


105 


appended  to  a  curious  Arabic  version  of  the  Nicene  canons, 
the  punishment  provided  for  persistent  disobedience  and  tur- 
bulence is  expulsion  of  the  offender  from  the  monastery.1 

As  a  temporary  refuge  from  the  trials  of  life,  where  the 
soul  could  be  strengthened  by  seclusion,  meditation,  peaceful 
labor,  and  rigid  discipline,  thousands  must  have  found  the 
institution  of  Monachism  most  beneficial  who  had  not  reso- 
lution enough  to  give  themselves  up  to  a  life  of  ascetic  devo- 
tion and  privation.  These  facilities  for  entrance  and  depar- 
ture, however,  only  rendered  more  probable  the  admission 
of  the  turbulent  and  the  worldly ;  and  the  want  of  stringent 
and  effective  regulations  must  have  rendered  itself  every 
day  more  apparent,  as  the  holy  multitudes  waxed  larger  and 
more  difficult  to  manage,  and  as  the  empire  became  covered 
with  wandering  monks,  described  by  St.  Augustine  as  beggars, 
swindlers,  and  peddlers  of  false  relics,  who  resorted  to  the  most 
shameless  mendacity  to  procure  the  means  of  sustaining  their 
idle  and  vagabond  life.2 


gious  asceticism  succeeded  in  its  ob-  I 
ject  of  destroying  all  human  feeling 
is  well  exemplified  by  the  shining 
example  of  the  holy  Mucins,  who  pre- 
sented himself  for  admission  in  a 
monastery,  accompanied  by  his  child, 
a  boy  eight  years  of  age.  His  persist- 
ent humility  gained  for  him  a  relaxa- 
tion of  the  rules,  and  father  and  son 
were  admitted  together.  To  test  his 
worthiness,  however,  they  were  sepa- 
rated, and  all  intercourse  forbidden. 
His  patience  encouraged  a  further 
trial.  The  helpless  child  was  neglect- 
ed and  abused  systematically,  but  all  | 
the  perverse  ingenuity  which  render- 
ed him  a  mass  of  filth  and  visited  him 
with  perpetual  chastisement  failed  to 
excite  a  sign  of  interest  in  the  father. 
Finally  the  abbot  feigned  to  lose  all 
patience  with  the  little  sufferer's 
moans,  and  ordered  Mucius  to  cast 
him  in  the  river.  The  obedient  monk 
carried  him  to  the  bank  and  threw  him 
in  with  such  promptitude  that  the 
admiring  spectators  were  barely  able 
to  rescue  him.  All  that  is  wanting  to 
complete  the  hideous  picture  is  the 
declaration  of  the  abbot  that  in  Mu- 
cius the  sacrifice  of  Abraham  was  com- 
pleted. (Ibid.  Lib.  v.  c.  27,  23.)    This 


epitomizes  the  whole  system — the 
transfer  to  man  of  the  obedience  due 
to  God — and  shows  how  little,  by  this 
time,  was  left  of  the  hopeful  reliance 
on  a  beneficent  God  which  distinguish- 
ed the  primitive  church,  and  which  led 
Athenagoras,  in  the  second  century, 
to  argue  from  the  premises  "  Deus 
certe  ad  ea  quse  praeter  naturam  sunt 
neminem  movet."'  The  extravagant 
lengths  to  which  this  implicit  subjec- 
tion was  habitually  carried  are  further 
illustrated  by  Cassianus  in  Lib.  iv.  c. 
10. 

The  Rule  which  passes  under  the 
name  of  John,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  I 
believe  is  universally  acknowledged 
to  be  spurious,  and  therefore  requires 
no  special  reference. 

1  De  Monach.  Decret.  can.  x.  (Har- 
duin.  Concil.  I.  498.) 

2  Nusquam  missos,  nusquam  fixos, 
nusquam  stantes,  nusquam  sedentes. 
Alii  membra  martyrurn,  si  -tamen 
martyrum,  venditant ;  alii  fimbrias  et 
phylacteria  sua  magnificant  .  .  .  et 
omnes  petunt,  omnes  exigunt,  ant 
sumptus  lucrospe  egestatis,  a  lit  simu- 
late pretium  sauctitatis  etc. — Augus- 
tin.  de  Opere  Monachor.  cap.  28. 


1U6  MONACHISM. 

The  weaker  sex,  whether  from  the  greater  value  attached 
to  the  purity  of  woman  or  from  her  presumed  frailty,  as  well 
as  from  some  difference  in  the  nature  of  the  engagement  entered 
into,  was  the  first  to  become  the  object  of  distinct  legislation, 
and  the  frequency  of  the  efforts  required  shows  the  difficulty 
of  enforcing  the  rule  of  celibacy  and  chastity.  Allusion  has 
already  been  made  to  a  law  of  Jovian  which,  as  early  as 
364,  denounced  the  attempt  to  marry  a  nun  as  a  capital  crime. 
Subsequent  canons  of  the  church  show  that  this  was  wholly 
ineffectual.  The  council  of  Yalence,  in  374,  endeavored  to 
check  such  marriages.  The  synod  of  Eome,  in  384,  alludes 
with  horror  to  these  unions,  which  it  stigmatizes  as  adultery, 
and,  drawing  a  distinction  between  virgins  professed  and  those 
who  had  taken  the  veil,  it  prescribes  an  indefinite  penance 
before  they  can  be  received  back  into  the  church,  but  at  the 
same  time  it  does  not  venture  to  order  their  separation  from 
their  husbands.1  A  year  later,  the  bolder  Siricius  commands 
both  monks  and  nuns  guilty  of  unchastity  to  be  imprisoned, 
but  he  makes  no  allusion  to  marriage.2  Notwithstanding  the 
fervor  of  St.  Augustine's  admiration  for  virginity  and  the 
earnestness  with  which  he  waged  war  in  favor  of  celibacy,  he 

{pronounces  that  the  marriage  of  nuns  is  binding,  ridicules 
those  who  consider  it  as  invalid,  and  deprecates  the  evil 

jresults  of  separating  man  and  wife  under  such  circumstances, 

!  but  yet  his  asceticism,  satisfied  with  this  concession  to  com- 
mon sense,  pronounces  such  unions  to  be  worse  than  adul- 

Iterous.3     From  this   it   is   evident  that   these  infractions  of 


1  Synod.  Roman,  ann.  384,  c.  1,  2.    |  non  esse  nuptias  sed  potius  adulteria 

2  Birioii  Epist.  1,  c.  6.— A  rather  '  ™}  mihi  videntur  satis  acute  ac 
curious  episode  in  monastic  discipline  Jihgenter  considerarequid  dicant  .  .  . 
is  a  law  promulgated  in  390  by  Theo-  :  J1*  autem  Per  hanc  minus  considera- 
dosius  the  Great  prohibiting  nuns  tam  °Pmi<>nem,  qua  putant  lapsarum 
from  shaving  their  heads  under  se-  a  sancto  proposito  foeminarum,  si  nup- 
vere  penalties.  "  Fceminaj  qua?  crinem  sen1nt'  non  esse  conJugia,  non  parvum 
suum  contra  divinas  humanasque  malum;  ut  a  mantis  separentur 
leges  instinctu  persuasaj  professions  uxores>  <luasi  adulter*  sint,  non 
absciderint  ab  ecclesira  foribus  arce-  ux°rea  ;  et  cum  volent  eas  separatas 
antur,"  and  any  bishop  permitting  !  reddere  continent!*,  faciunt  maritos 
them  to  enter  a  church  is  threatened  j  earum  adulteros  veros,  cum  suis  uxo- 

with     deposition.  —Lib.     xvi.     Cod.  !  n1bus  vl™,  altera*  duxennt Sed 

Theod.  Tit.  ii.  1.  27.  j  Plane  non  dubitaverim  dicere  lapsus 

I  et  ruinas  a  castitate  sanctiore.  quae  vo- 

3  froinde  qui  dicunt  talium  nuptias  [  vetur  Domino,  adulteriis  esse  pejores. 


VOWS   NOT   IRREVOCABLE.  107 

discipline  were  far  from  uncommon,  and  that  the  stricter 
churchmen  already  treated  such  marriages  as  null  and  void, 
which  resulted  in  the  husbands  considering  themselves  at 
liberty  to  marry  again.  This  view  of  monastic  vows  was  not 
sustained  by  the  authorities  of  the  church,  for  about  the  same 
period  Innocent  I.,  like  St.  Augustine,  while  condemning  such 
marriages  as  worse  than  adulterous,  admitted  their  validity 
by  refusing  communion  to  the  offenders  until  one  of  the 
partners  in  guilt  should  be  dead ;  and,  like  the  synod  of  384, 
•he  considered  the  transgression  as  somewhat  less  culpable  in 
the  professed  virgin  than  in  her  who  had  consummated  her 
marriage  with  Christ  by  absolutely  taking  the  veil.1  The 
same  general  principle  had  been  enunciated  a  few  years  pre- 
vious by  the  first  council  of  Toledo  which  decided  that  the 
nun  who  married  was  not  admissible  to  penitence  during  the 
life  of  her  husband,  unless  she  separated  herself  from  him.2 

It  is  evident  from  all  this  that  an  effort  had  been  made  to 
have  such  marriages  condemned  as  invalid,  and  that  it  had 
failed.  We  see,  however,  that  the  lines  had  gradually  been 
drawn  more  tightly  around  the  monastic  order,  that  the  vows 
could  no  longer  be  shaken  off  with  ease,  and  that  there  was  a 


-De  Bono  Viduit.  c.  10, 11.  It  will  be  j  than  to  that  of  the  men. 
seen  hereafter  that  in  the  twelfth  The  difficulty  of  the  questions  which 
century  the  church  adopted  as  a  rule  I  arose  in  establishing  the  monastic 
of  discipline  the  practice  condemned  \  system  is  shown  in  an  epistle  of  Leo 
by  St.  Augustine,  and  that  in  the  1 1,  to  the  Mauritanian  Bishops  con- 
sixteenth  century  the  council  of  Trent  ;  cerning  some  virgins  professed  who 
elevated  it  into  a  point  of  faith.  |  had  suffered  violence  from   the   Bar- 

,  T  ,    ^,  .  .       ,  ,T.  ,  .  .  barians.     He  decides   that  they  had 

1  Innocent.  Epist.  ad  Victricium,  c.  ...    ,  .  ,         ,,  /       , 

10  to      m,         ^         -,  .  !.,     committed  no  sin,  and  could  be  ad- 

12,  Id.     Ihe  assumed  marriage  with       ...  j  .  ' .        .„  ,, 

n,    ■  .         ,,  .  .  v    a*.    R       ■        mitted  to  communion  if  they  perse- 

Christ,  a   theory   which    St.  Cyprian  i  ,    .  ,  f       f     ,        .      *   * 

shows  to  be  as  old  as  the  third  cen-  I  7.GT.ea   in . a  llte  ot   c£astlt7  ana  re 

tury,  is  very  strongly  stated  by  Inno-  -  1,«,??a    fservance,    but    that    they 

*      «q-       •      j  -i       u  j.-    '  could  not  continue    to   be  numbered 

cent,    "bi  enim  de  omnibus  h?ec  ratio       ...    .,     .    ,  .,  ...         ... 

.    ,.,  ,  .  .      i  with  the  holy  maidens,  while  yet  they 

custoditur.utquaecumqueviventeviro  I     ara       .  .     *    a^aIa   +n  «fa  nrA* 


alteri  nnpserit  habeatur  adultera,  nee 


were  not  to  be  degraded  to  the  order 


„„„  -„F«„..  "-^"^  —«—->  "™  of  widows;    and  he  further  requires 

ei  agendas  poemtentise  licentia  conce-  .,     ,  ,,          ,    „       .  .,  ..    ,,    .       ^         e 

,   ,  B       .  . y                 .     e      .,   ,   „          !  that  they  shall  exhibit  their  sense  of 

datur.  nisi  unus  ex  eis  merit  defunc-  ,             •',,        ...  ..          m,           ,. 

,          '        ,       .  .„            .    ,           .  shame  and  humiliation.     Ihe  problem 

tus  ;  quanto  et  ilia  magis  tenenda  est,        ..      .,  ..  v  . r      A   ■, 

.        4     .            4  i.                              '  evidently  was  one  which  transcended 

quae    ante    immortah   se  sponso  con-  ■  aent"Less  even  of  Leo  to  solve  — 

lunxerat,  et  postea  ad  humanas  nup-  T        .    T  „  .  .   -a.                  n 

tias  transmigravit  ?"    It  was  probably  *»°m*  L  EPlst"  Ep.1SCOp-  ?£  C*sarien- 

this  mystic  marriage  which  rendered  ISXS^    Cap'    "'    ^    <Hardmn'    L 

the  church  so  much  more  sensitive  to  '" 

the  frailty  of  their  female   devotees  2  Concil.  Toletan.  I.  c.  1G. 


108 


MONACHISM. 


growing  tendency  to  render  the  monastic  character  inefface- 
able when  once  assnmed.  Towards  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century,  however,  a  reaction  took  place,  possibly  because  the 
extreme  views  may  have  been  found  impracticable.  Thus 
Leo  I.  treats  recalcitrant  cenobites  with  singular  tenderness. 
He  declares  that  monks  cannot  without  sin  abandon  their 
profession,  and  therefore  that  he  who  returns  to  the  world 
and  marries  must  redeem  himself  by  penitence,  for  however 
honorable  be  the  marriage  tie  and  the  active  duties  of  life, 
still  it  is  a  transgression  to  desert  the  better  path.  So  pro-, 
fessed  virgins,  who  throw  off  the  habit  and  marry,  violate 
their  duty,  and  those  who  in  addition  to  this  have  been  regu- 
larly consecrated  commit  a  great  crime — and  yet  no  further 
punishment  is  indicated  for  them.1  It  is  true  that  about  the 
same  time  St.  Patrick  endeavored  to  enforce  the  sterner  rule 
of  separation  in  such  cases  under  penalty  of  excommunication  ;2 
but  such  efforts  were  futile,  and  the  little  respect  still  paid  to 
the  indelible  character  claimed  for  monachism  is  shown  by 
the  manner  in  which  the  civil  power  was  ready  to  interfere 
for  the  purpose  of  putting  an  end  to  some  of  the  many  abuses 
arising  from  monastic  institutions.  In  458  Majorian  promul- 
gated a  law  in  which  he  inveighs  with  natural  indignation 
against  the  parents  who,  to  get  rid  of  their  offspring,  compel 
their  unhappy  daughters  to  enter  convents  at  a  tender  age, 
and  he  orders  that,  until  the  ardor  of  the  passions  shall  be 
tempered  by  advancing  years,  no  vows  shall  be  administered. 
The  minimum  age  for  taking  the  veil  is  fixed  at  forty  years, 
and  stringent  measures  are  provided  for  insuring  its  observ- 
ance.    If  infringed  by  order  of  the  parents,  or  by  an  orphan 


1  Leo  Epist.  ad  Rusticum  c.  12,  13, 
14.  ' '  Propositum  monachi,  proprio  ar- 
bitrio  aut  voluntate  susceptum,  deseri 
non  potest  absque  peccato.  .  .  .  Unde 
qui  relicta  singularitatis  professione, 
ad  militiam  vel  ad  nuptias  devolutus 
est,  publicse  poenitentise  satisfaction 
purgandus  est ;  quia  etsi  innoeens  mi- 
litia et  honestum  potest  esse  conju- 
gium,  electionem  tamen  meliorum  de- 
seruisse  transgressio  est."  So  the 
second  council  of  Aries,  in  441  (Can. 


52),  excommunicates  the  nun  who 
marries  until  due  penance  shall  have 
been  performed,  but  does  not  indicate 
separation. 

2  Virgo  quae  voverit  Deo  perma- 
nere  casta  et  postea  nupserit  carna- 
lem  sponsum,  excommunicationis  sit 
donee  convertatur  ;  si  conversa  fuerit 
et  demiserit  adulterum,  poenitentiam 
agat,  et  postea  non  in  una  domo  nee 
in  una  villa  habitent. — Synod.  S.  Pat- 
ricii  ann.  45G,  c.  17. 


SEDITION   OF    THE    EASTERN    MONKS.  109 

girl  of  lier  own  free  will,  one-third  of  all  the  possessions  of 
the  offender  is  confiscated  to  the  state,  and  the  ecclesiastics 
officiating  at  the  ceremony  are  visited  with  the  heavy  punish- 
ment of  proscription.  A  woman  forced  into  a  nunnery,  if  her 
parents  die  before  she  reaches  the  age  of  forty,  is  declared  to 
be  free  to  leave  the  order  and  to  marry,  nor  can  she  be  dis- 
inherited thereafter.1  Fruitless  as  this  well-intentioned  effort 
proved,  it  is  highly  suggestive  as  to  the  wrongs  which  werei 
perpetrated  under  the  name  of  religion,  the  stern  efforts  felt 
to  be  requisite  for  their  prevention,  and  the  power  exercised 
to  annul  the  vows,  not  yet  recognized  as  indissoluble. 


In  the  East,  the  tendency  was  to  give  a  more  rigid  and 
unalterable  character  to  the  vows,  nor  is  it  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  cause.  Both  church  and  state  began  to  feel  the 
necessity  of  reducing  to  subjection  under  some  competent 
authority  the  vast  hordes  of  idle  and  ignorant  men  who  had 
embraced  monastic  life.  In  the  West,  monachism  was  as  yef  ] 
in  its  infancy,  and  was  to  be  stimulated  rather  than  to  bej 
dreaded,  but  it  was  far  otherwise  in  the  East.f"  The  examples 
of  Antony  and  Pachomius  had  brought  them  innumerable 
followers.  The  solitudes  of  the  deserts  had  become  peopled 
with  vast  communities,  and  as  the  contagion  spread,  monas- 
teries arose  everywhere  and  were  rapidly  filled  and  enlarged. 
The  blindly  bigoted  and  the  turbulently  ambitious  found  a 
place  among  those  whose  only  aim  was  retirement  and  peace ; 
while  the  authority  wielded  by  the  superior  of  each  establish- 
ment gave  him  a  degree  of  power  which  rendered  him  not 
only  important  but  dangerous.  The  monks  thus  became  in 
time  a  body  of  no  little  weight  which  it  behooved  the  church  to 
thoroughly  control,  as  it  might  become  efficient  for  good  or  \ 
evil.  By  encouraging  and  directing  it,  she  gained  an  instru- 
ment of  incalculable  force,  morally  and  physically,  to  conso- 
lidate her  authority  and  extend  her  influence.  How  that  influ- 
ence was  used,  and  how  the  monks  became  at  times  a  terror 
even  to  the  state  is  written  broadly  on  the  history  of  the  age. 

Even  early  in  the  fifth  century  the  hordes  of  savage  Nitrian 



1  Novell.    Majorian.   Tit.   vi.     This  j  years,   being    abrogated    in    463    bj 
law   continued  in   force   for   but  five  |  Severus. — Novell.  Severi.  Tit.  I. 


110  MONACHISM. 

cenobites  were  the  janizaries  of  the  fiery  Cyril,  with  which  he 
lorded  it  over  the  city  of  Alexandria,  and  almost  openly  bade 
defiance  to  the  imperial  authority.  The  tumult  in  which  Orestes 
nearly  lost  his  life,  the  banishment  of  the  Jews,  and  the  shock- 
ing catastrophe  of  Hypatia  show  how  dangerous  an  element 
to  society  they  were  even  then,  when  under  the  guidance  of 
an  able  and  unscrupulous  leader.1  So  the  prominent  part 
taken  by  the  monks  in  the  deplorable  Nestorian  and  Euty- 
chian  controversies,  the  example  of  the  Abbot  Barsumas.at 
"  the  synod  of  Bobbers"  in  Ephesus,  the  exploits  of  Theoclo- 
sius  of  Jerusalem  and  Peter  of  Antioch,  who  drove  out  their 
bishops  and  usurped  the  episcopal  chair^,  the  career  of  Euty- 
ches  himself,  the  bloodthirsty  rabble  of  monks  who  controlled 
the  synod  of  Ephesus  and  endeavored  to  overawe  that  of 
Chalcedon,  and,  in  the  succeeding  century,  the  insurrections 
against  the  Emperor  Anastasius  which  were  largely  attributa- 
ble to  their  efforts — all  these  were  warnings  not  lightly  to  be 
(neglected.  The  monks,  in  fact,  were  fast  becoming  not  only 
disagreeable  but  even  dangerous  to  the  civil  power;  their 
organization  and  obedience  to  their  leaders  gave  them  strength 
to  seriously  threaten  the  influence  even  of  the  hierarchy, 
and  the  effort  to  keep  them  strictly  under  subjection  and 
within  their  convent  walls  became  necessary  to  the  peace  of 
both  church  and  state. 

/  In  451  the  church  endeavored  to  protect  itself  from  these 
disorders  by  establishing  a  rigorous  discipline  and  placing 
the  monastic  institutions  under  the  supervision  and  con- 
trol of  the  prelates.  The  (Ecumenic  council  of  Chalcedon  in 
that  year  adopted  a  series  of  canons  which  declared  that  monks 
and  nuns  were  not  at  liberty  to  marry ;  but  while  excommu- 
nication was  the  punishment  provided  for  the  offence,  power 


1  Socrat.   Hist.  Eccles.   Lib.  vn.  c.  turbulent  monks  within  their  dioceses 

13,  14,  15. — Even  before  this,  in  the  — "  Ii  autem  qui  in  prsesidiis  suis  cir- 

province  of  Africa,  the  political  utility  cumcellionum  turbas  se  habere  cogno- 

of    such    enthusiastic   disciples   had  scunt,  sciant  nisi  eorum  insolentiam 

been   recognized  and   acted   on.     At  omnimodis   comprimere   et  refrenare 

the  council  of  Carthage,  in  411,  where  gestierint,  maxime  ea  loca  fisco  mox 

the   Donatists    were   condemned,  the  occupanda." — Concil.    Carthag.    ann. 

Imperial  Commissioner,  in  pronounc-  411,  Cognit.  in.  cap.  ult.     (Harduin. 

ing   sentence,   warned    the    Donatist  I.  1190.) 
bishops   that  they  must  restrain  the 


LEGISLATION   OF    THE    EAST.  Ill 

was  given  to  the  bishops  to  extend  mercy  to  the  offenders. 
The  council  deplored  the  turbulence  of  the  monks  who,  leav- 
ing their  monasteries,  stirred  up  confusion  everywhere,  and  it 
commanded  them  to  devote  themserves  solely  to  prayer  and 
fasting  in  the  spot  which  they  had  chosen  as  a  retreat  from 
the  world.  It  forbade  them  to  abandon  the  holy  life  to  which 
they  had  devoted  themselves,  and  pronounced  the  dread  sen- 
tence of  the  anathema  on  the  renegades  who  refused  to  return 
and  undergo  due  penance.  The  whole  system  was  placed 
under  the  supervision  and  control  of  the  bishops.  No  mon- 
astery was  to  be  founded  without  the  license  of  the  bishop 
of  the  locality,  and  he  alone  could  give  permission  to  a  monk 
to  leave  it  for  any  purpose.1 

This  legislation  was  well  adapted  to  the  end  in  view,  but" 
the  evil  was  too  deep-seated  and  too  powerful  to  be  thus  easily 
eradicated.  Finding  the  church  unable  to  enforce  a  remedy, 
the  civil  power  was  compelled  to  intervene.  As  early  as  890 
Theodosius  the  Great  had  ordered  the  monks  to  confine  them- 
selves strictly  to  deserts  and  solitudes.2  Two  years  later  he 
repealed  this  law  and  allowed  them  to  enter  the  cities.3  This 
laxity  was  abused,  and  in  4:66  the  Emperors  Leo  and  Anthe- 
mius  issued  an  edict  forbidding  for  the  future  all  monks  to  go 
beyond  the  walls  of  their  monasteries  on  any  pretext,  except 
the  apocrisarii,  or  legal  officers,  on  legitimate  business  alone, 
and  these  were  strictly  enjoined  not  to  engage  in  religious 
disputes,  not  to  stir  up  the  people,  and  not  to  preside  over 
assemblages  of  any  nature.4 

History  shows  us  how  little  obedience  this  also  received, 
nor  is  it  probable  that  much  more  attention  was  paid  to  the 
imperial  rescript  when,  in  523,  Justinian  confirmed  the  legisl 
lation  of  his  predecessors,  and  added  provisions  forbidding^ 
those  who  had  once  taken  the  vows  from  returning  to  the 
world  under  penalty  of  being  handed  over  to  the  curia  of  their 
municipality,  with  confiscation  of  their  property,  and  personal 


1  Concil.  Chalced.  c.  4,  7,  16.  j  tare  jubeantur. — Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod. 

2  Quicumque  sub   professione  mo-  j m* 

naclii    repperiuntur,    deserta   loca   et  !      3  Lib.  xvi.  Cod.  Theod.  iii.  2. 
vastas  solitudiues  sequi  atque  habi- 1      4  ~       .    09   n0(\       3 


112 


M  0  N  A  C  H  I  S  M . 


punishment  if  penniless.1  Had  the  effort  then  been  successful, 
he  would  not  have  been  under  the  necessity  of  renewing  it  in 
535  by  a  law  making  over  to  the  monastery,  by  way  of  satisfac- 
tion to  God,  the  property* of  any  monk  presuming  to  abandon 
a  life  of  religion  and  returning  to  the  cares  of  the  world.2 
The  prevalent  laxity  of  manners  is  further  shown  by  another 
provision  according  to  which  the  monk  who  received  orders 
was  not  allowed  to  marry,  even  if  he  entered  grades  in  which 
marriage  was  permitted  to  the  secular  clergy,  the  penalty  for 
taking  a  wife  or  a  concubine  being  degradation  and  dismissal, 
with  incapacity  for  serving  the  state.3  Ten  years  later,  fur- 
ther legislation  was  found  necessary,  and  at  length  the  final 
expedient  was  hit  upon,  by  which  the  apostate  monk  was 
handed  over  to  the  bishop  to  be  placed  in  a  monastery,  from 
which  if  he  escaped  again  he  was  delivered  to  the  secular  tri- 
bunal as  incorrigible.4 


/  Thus  gradually  the  irrevocable  nature  of  monastic  vows 
(became  established  in  the  East,  more  from  reasons  of  state 
(than  from  ecclesiastical  considerations.  In  the  West,  matters 
were  longer  in  reaching  a  settlement,  and  the  causes  operating 
were  somewhat  different.  Monachism  there  had  not  become 
a  terror  to  the  civil  power,  and  its  management  was  left  to 
the  church;  yet,  if  its  influence  was  insufficient  to  excite 
tumults  and  seditions,  it  was  none  the  less  disorganized,  and 
its  disorders  were  a  disgrace  to  those  on  whom  rested  the 
responsibility. 

The  Latin  church  was  not  by  any  means  insensible  to  this 
disgrace,  nor  did  it  underrate  the  importance  of  rendering 
the  vows  indissoluble,  of  binding  its  servants  absolutely  and 
forever  to  its  service,  and  of  maintaining  its  character  and 
influence  by  endeavoring  to  enforce  a  discipline  that  should 
insure  purity.  During  the  period  sketched  above,  and  for 
the  two  following  centuries,  there  is  scarcely  a  council  which 


1  Const.  53  §  1  Cod.  i.  3. 

2  Novell,  v.  c.  4,  6. 

3  Novell,  v.  c.  8. 

4  Novell,  cxxni.  c.  42.    The  trouble 


was  apparently  incurable.  Three 
hundred  and  fifty  years  later,  Leo  the 
Philosopher  deplores  it,  and  orders  all 
recalcitrant  monks  to  be  returned  to 
their  convents  as  often  as  they  may 
escape. 


IRREGULARITIES   OF    THE   WESTERN    MONKS.       113 

did  not  enact  canons  showing  at  once  the  persistent  effort  to 
produce  these  results  and  the  almost  insurmountable  difficulty 
of  accomplishing  them.     It  would  lead  us  too  far  to  enter 
upon  the  minutiae  of  these  perpetually  reiterated  exhortations 
and  threats,  or  of  the  various  expedients  which  were  suc- 
cessively tried.     Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  end  in  view  was 
never  lost  sight  of,  while  the  perseverance  of  the  wrongdoer 
seems  to  have  rivalled  that  of  the  disciplinarian.     The  anvil 
bade  fair  to  wear  out  the  hammer,  while  the  confusion  and 
lawlessness  of  those  dismal  ages  gave  constantly  increasing 
facilities  to  those  who  desired  to  escape  from  the  strictness  of 
the  ascetic  life  to  which  they  had  devoted  themselves      Thus 
arose  a  crowd  of  vagabond  monks,  gyrovagi,  acephati,  circil- 
hones,  sarabaitce,  who,  without   acknowledging  obedience  to 
any  superior,  or  having  any  definite  place  of  abode,  wandered 
over  the  face  of  the  country,  claiming  the  respect  and  immu- 
nities due  to  a  sacred  calling,  for  the  purpose  of  indulging  in 
an  idle  and  dissolute  life— vagrants  of  the  worst  description  ' 
according  to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  ecclesiastical1 
authorities  of  the  period.1 

Thus,  up  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  no  regulaf 
system  of  discipline  had  been  introduced  in  the  monastic 
establishments  of  the  church  of  Eome.  About  that  period 
Cassianus,  the  first  abbot  of  St.  Victor  of  Marseilles,  wrote 
out,  for  the  benefit  of  the  ruder  monasticism  of  the  West  the 
details  of  discipline  in  which  he  had  perfected  himself  among 
the  renowned  communities  of  the  East.  He  deplores  the 
absence  of  any  fixed  rule  in  the  Latin  convents,  where  every 
abbot  governed  on  the  plan  which  suited  his  fancy  where 
more  difficulty  was  found  in  preserving  order  among  two  or 


1  St.  Benedict  of  Nursia,  the  real 
founder  of  Latin  monachism,  who  quit- 
ted the  world  in  494,  thus  describes 
the  wandering  monks  of  his  time  : 
"Tertium  vero  monachorum  teterri- 
mum  genus  est  Sarabaitarum  ...  qui 
bini  aut  terni,  aut  certe  singuli  sine 
pastore,  non  Dominicis  sed  suis  inclusi 
ovilibus,  pro  lege  eis  est  desideriorum 
voluptas;  cum  quidquid  putaverint 
vel  elegerint,  hoc  dicunt  sanctum,  et 
quod   noluerint    putant    non    licere. 


Quartum  vero  genus  est  monachorum 
quod  nominatur  gyrovagum,  qui  tota 
vita  sua  per  diversas  provincias  ternis 
aut  quaternis  diebus  per  diversorum 
cellas  hospitantur,  semper  vagi  et  nun- 
quam  stabiles,  et  propriis  voluptatibus 
et  gula?  illecebris  servientes,  et  per 
omnia  deteriores  Sarabaitis  :  de  quo- 
rum omnium  miserrima  conversatione 
melius  estsilerequamloqui."— Regul. 
S.  Benedicti  c.  1. 


114 


MONACHISM 


three  monks  than  the  Abbot  of  Tabenna  in  the  Thebaid  expe- 
rienced with  the  flock  of  five  thousand  committed  to  his  single 
charge;  and  where  each  individual  retained  his  own  private 
hoards,  which  were  carefully  locked  up  and  sealed  to  keep 
them  from  the  unscrupulous  covetousness  of  his  brethren. 
How  little  all  these  efforts  accomplished  is  clearly  manifested 
when  in  494,  we  find  Gelasius  I.  lamenting  the  incestuous 
marriages  which  were   not   uncommon   among   the  virgins 
dedicated  to  God,  and  venturing  only  to  denounce  excom- 
munication on  the  offenders,  unless  they  should  avert  it  by 
undergoing  public  penance.     As  for  widows  who  married 
after  professing  chastity,  he  could  indicate  no  earthly  chas- 
tisement, but  only  held  out  to  them  the  prospect  of  eternal 
reward  or  punishment,  and  left  it  for  them  to  decide  whether 
they  would  seek  or  abandon  the  better  part.2 
HL  new  apostle  was  clearly  needed  to  aid  the  organizing 
fcpirit  of  Rome  in  her  efforts  to  regulate  the  increasing  number 
lof  devotees,  who  threatened  to  become  the  worst  scandal  of 
the  church,  and  who  could  be  rendered  so  efficient  an  instru- 
ment for  its  aggrandizement.     He  was  found  in  the  person  of 
St  Benedict  of  Nursia,  who,  about  the  year  494,  at  the  early 
age  of  sixteen,  tore  himself  from  the  pleasures  of  the  world, 
and  buried  his  youth  in  the  solitudes  of  the  Latian  Apennines. 
A  nature  that  could  wrench  itself  away  from  the  allurements 
of  a  splendid  career  dawning  amid  the  blandishments  of  Rome 
was  not  likely  to  shrink  from  the  austerities  which  awe  and 
attract  the  credulous  and  the  devout.     Tempted  by  the  Evil 
Spirit  in  the  guise  of  a  beautiful  maiden,  and  finding  his 
resolution  on  the  point  of  yielding,  with   a  supreme  effort 
Benedict  cast  off  his  simple  garment  and  threw  himself  into 
a  thicket  of  brambles  and  nettles,  through  which  he  rolled 
until  his  naked  body  was  lacerated  from  head  to  foot.     The 
experiment,  though  rude,  was  eminently  successful;  the  flesh 
was  effectually  conquered,  and  Benedict  was  never  again  tor- 
mented by  rebellious  desires.3     A  light  so  shining  was  not 


i  Cassiani  de  Coenob.  Instit.  Lib.  n. 
c.  3;  Lib.  v.  c.  1,  15. 

2  Gtelasii  PP.  I,  Epist.  ix.  cap.  xx., 
xxi. 


3  Greg.  Mag.  Vit.  S.  Benedicti  c.  2. 
— Juan  Cirita,  a  Spanish  saint  of  the 
twelfth  century,  was  exposed  to  the 
same  temptation  as  St.  Benedict,  the 
devil  visiting  him  in  the  shape  of  a 


CHARACTER   OF    THE    BENEDICTINE    RULE.       115 

created  for  obscurity.  Zealous  disciples  assembled  around 
him,  attracted  from  distant  regions  by  his  sanctity,  and  after 
various  vicissitudes  he  founded  the  monastery  of  Monte  Cas- 
sino,  on  which  for  a  thousand  years  were  lavished  all  that 
veneration  and  munificence  could  accumulate  to  render  illus- 
trious the  birthplace  and  capital  of  the  great  Benedictine 
Order. 

The  rule  promulgated  by  Benedict,  which  virtually  became^ 
the  established  law  of  Latin  Monachism,  shows  the  morel 
practical  character  of  the  western  mind.  Though  pervaded  ! 
by  the  austerest  asceticism,  yet  labor,  charity,  and  good  works 
occupy  a  much  more  prominent  place  in  its  injunctions  than 
in  the  system  of  the  East.  Salvation  was  not  to  be  sought 
simply  by  abstinence  and  mortification,  and  the  innate  self- 
ishness of  the  monastic  principle  was  relaxed  in  favor  of  a 
broader  and  more  human  view  of  the  duties  of  man  to  his 
Creator  and  to  his  fellows.  This  gave  to  the  institution  a 
firmer  hold  on  the  affections  of  mankind  and  a  more  enduring 
vitality,  which  preserved  its  fortunes  through  the  centuries, 
in  spite  of  innumerable  aberrations  and  frightful  abuses. 

Still  there  were  as  yet  no  formal  vows  of  poverty,  chastity, 
and  obedience  exacted  of  the  novice.  After  a  year  of  pro- 
bation he  promised,  before  God  and  the  Saints,  to  keep  the 
Kule  under  pain  of  damnation,  and  he  was  then  admitted 
with  imposing  religious  ceremonies.  His  worldly  garments 
were,  however,  preserved,  to  be  returned  to  him  in  case  of 
expulsion,  to  which  he  was  liable  if  incorrigibly  disobedient. 
If  he  left  the  monastery,  or  if  he  was  ejected,  he  could  return 


lovely  woman  who  sought  refuge  from  j  rebellious  flesh  in  the  manner  which 
her  pursuers  in  his  cell.  During  a  St.  Benedict  found  so  effectual,  hut 
sleepless  night,  feeling  his  resolution  without  success.  He  then  buried  a 
giving  way,  he  roused  his  fire  and  with  cask  in  the  earthen  floor  of  his  cell, 
a  glowing  brand  burned  his  arm  to  the  filled  it  with  water  and  fitted  it  with 
bone,  whereupon  the  devil  vanished,  i  a  cover,  and  in  this  receptacle  he  shut 
loading  him  with  reproaches  (Henri-  I  himself  up  whenever  he  felt  the  titil- 
quez  Vit.  Joannis  Cirita  cap.  ii.).  Le-  lations  of  desire.  In  this  manner,  va- 
gends  of  this  nature  are  not  uncom-  j  ried  by  occasionally  passing  the  night 
mon,  nor  are  there  wanting  those  of  up  to  his  chin  in  a  river  of  which  he 
another  class  in  which  the  immediate  had  broken  the  ice,  he  finally  suc- 
and  visible  agency  of  the  Evil  Spirit  j  ceeded  in  mastering  his  fiery  nature, 
is  not  called  into  play.  Thus  the  holy  — Girald.  Cambrens.  Gemm.  Eccles. 
Godric,  a  Welsh  saint  of  the  twelfth  Div.  II.  c.  x. 
century,    endeavored   to  subdue  his 


116 


MONACHISM 


twice,  but  after  the  third  admission,  if  he  again  abandoned  the 
order,  he  was  no  longer  eligible.1  Voluntary  submission  was 
thus  the  corner-stone  of  discipline,  and  there  was  nothing 
irrevocable  in  the  engagement  which  bound  the  monk  to  his 

brethren. 

Contemporary  with  St.  Benedict  was  St.  Caesarms  of  Aries, 
whose  Rule  has  been  transmitted  to  us  by  his  nephew,  St. 
Tetradius.  It  is  very  short,  but  is  more  rigid  than  that  of 
Benedict,  inasmuch  as  it  requires  from  the  applicant  the  con- 
dition of  remaining  for  life  in  the  convent,  nor  will  it  permit 
his  assumption  of  the  habit  until  he  shall  have  executed  a 
deed  bestowing  all  his  property  either  on  his  relatives  or  on 
the  establishment  of  his  choice,  thus  insuring  the  rule  of 
poverty,  and  depriving  him  of  all  inducement  to  retire.2 

The  Rule  of  St.  Benedict,  however,  overcame  all  rivalry, 
and  was  at  length  universally  adopted.    Under  it  were  founded 
the  innumerable  monasteries  which  sprang  up  in  every  part 
iof  Europe,  and  were  everywhere  the  pioneers  of  civilization ; 
which  exercised  a  more  potent  influence  in  extending  Chris- 
itianity  over  the  Heathen  than  all  other  agencies  combined; 
which  carried  the  useful  arts  into  barbarous  regions,  and  pre- 
served to  modern  times  whatever  of  classic  culture  has  re- 
mained to  us.     If  they  were  equally  efficient  in  extending  the 
authority  of  the  Popes,  and  in  breaking  down  the  independ- 
ence of  local  and  national  churches,  it  is  not  to  be  rashly 
assumed  that  even  that  result  was  a  misfortune,  when  the 
anarchical  tendencies  of  the  Middle  Ages  were  to  be  neutral- 
ized principally  by  the  humanizing  force  of  religion,  and 
consolidation  was  requisite  to  carry  the  church  through  the 
wilderness.      Until  the  thirteenth  century  the  Benedictines 
were  practically  without  rivals,  and  their  numbers  and  holi- 
ness may  be  estimated  by  the  fact  that  in  the  fifteenth  century 
one  of  their  historians  computed  that  the  order  had  furnished 
fifty-five  thousand  five  hundred  and  five  blessed  members  to 
the  calendar  of  saints.3 


i  Regul.  S.  Benedict!  c.  58,  28,  29. 

2  Tetrad.  Regul.  c.  1. 

3  Quinquaginta  quinque  millia  quingenta 

quinque 
Omnes  canonizati  a  te  sunt  translate 


Est  monachus  sanctus.   Caput  vero  Bene- 
dictus.— 

(Birck  de  Monast.   Campido- 
nens.  c.  25.) 

Bishop  Trithemius  is  more  mode- 


MONASTIC   VOWS   BECOME    IRREVOCABLE.       117 

Yet  it  could  not  but  be  a  scandal  to  all  devout  minds  that 
a  man  who  had  once  devoted  himself  to  religious  observances 
should  return  to  the  world.  Not  only  did  it  tend  to  break  down 
the  important  distinction  now  rapidly  developing  between  the 
clergy  and  the  laity,  but  the  possibility  of  such  escape  inter- \ 
fered  with  the  control  of  the  church  over  so  large  a  class  of  I 
its  members,  and  diminished  their  utility  in  aiding  the  pro- 
gress of  its  aggrandizement.  We  cannot  be  surprised,  there- 
fore, that  within  half  a  century  after  the  death  of  St.  Benedict, 
among  the  reforms  energetically  inaugurated  by  St.  Gregory \ 
the  Great,  in  the  first  year  of  his  pontificate,  was  that  of  com- 
manding the  forcible  return  of  all  who  abandoned  their  pro- 
fession— the  terms  of  the  decretal  showing  that  no  concealment 
had  been  thought  necessary  by  the  renegades  in  leading  a 
secular  life  and  in  publicly  marrying.1  Equally  determined 
were  his  efforts  to  reform  the  abuses  which  had  so  relaxed  the 
discipline  of  some  monasteries  that  women  were  allowed 
perfect  freedom  of  access,  and  the  monks  contracted  such  inti- 
macy with  them  that  they  openly  acted  as  godfathers  to  their  • 
children;2  and  when,  in  601,  he  learned  that  the  monks  of  St. 
Vitus,  on  Mount  Etna,  considered  themselves  at  liberty  to 
marry,  apparently  without  leaving  their  convent,  he  checked 
the  abuse  by  the  most  prompt  and  decided  commands  to  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities  of  Sicily.3 

By  the  efforts  of  Gregory  the  monk  was  thus,  in  theory  at 
least,  separated  irrevocably  from  the  world,  and  committed  to 


rate,  his  estimate  amounting  to  only 
15,559.   (MirsBi  Orig.  Benedict.) 


entreaty  and  earnest  exhortation 
(Lib.  i.  Epist.  34),  without  even  a 
threat  of  excommunication,  and  re- 
main for  years  on  the  friendliest  terms 
with  him  (Lib.  xr.  Epist.  30,  35,  36), 
showing  that  the  rule  was  as  yet  by 
no  means  firmly  established.  In  an- 
other case,  however,  nothing  can  be 
more  indignant  and  peremptory  than 
his  commands.   (Lib.  vm.  Epist.  8,  9.) 


1  Et  quia  aliquos  monachorum  us- 
que ad  tantum  nefas  prosiliisse  cogno- 
vimus,  ut  uxores  publice  sortiantur; 
sub  omni  eos  vigilantia  requiras  et 
inventos  digna  coercitione  in  monas- 
teriis  quorum  monachi  fnerunt,  re- 
transmittas. — Gregor.  I.  Lib.  i.  Epist. 
42.  Six  years  later  he  had  to  repeat 
his  commands  in  stronger  terms.  (Cf. 
Lib.  vii.  Epist.  35.  Lib.  n.  Epist.  28. 
Lib.  iv.  Epist.  27.  Lib.  x.  Epist.  8.) 
Yet  when  the  offender  was  a  man  of  . 
rank  and   power,  as    in    the    case  of !  degentibua  mulieribua  sejangere  sine 

Venantius,  Patrician  of  Syracuse,  Ore-    ™eta  Slt  ^ltum     wlnch  laef  c  ia^r ' 
„„„„  „„,  ,;,  .;■     ,,    *.  e\  tL      terizes  as  "res  .  .  omnino  detestabihs 

gory  could  lay  aside  the  tone  of  lofty      .       f      ,     ,, 

command   aud  condescend  to  tender  !  et  nelanaa- 


2  Gregor.  I.  Lib.  iv.  Epist.  42. 

3  Gregor.  I.  Lib.  x.  Epist.  22,  23.— 
He  states  "  ut  etiam  monacliis  ibidem 


118 


MONACHISM 


an  existence  which  depended  solely  upon  the  church.  Cut 
off  from  family  and  friends,  the  door  closed  behind  him  for- 
ever, and  his  only  aspirations,  beyond  his  own  personal 
wants  and  hopes,  could  but  be  for  his  abbey,  his  order,  or 
the  church,  with  which  he  was  thus  indissolubly  connected. 
Such  was  the  theory,  and  it  worked  as  designed,  although  it 
was  too  much  in  opposition  to  the  immutable  tendencies  of 
human  nature  to  be  universally  enforced  without  a  struggle 
which  lasted  for  nearly  a  thousand  years.1 

To  follow  out  in  detail  the  vicissitudes  of  this  struggle 
would  require  too  much  space.  Its  nature  will  be  indicated 
by  occasional  references  in  the  following  pages,  and  mean- 
while it  will  be  sufficient  to  show  how  little  was  accomplished 
in  his  own  age  by  the  energy  and  authority  even  of  Gregory. 
It  was  only  a  few  years  after  his  death  that  the  council  of 
Paris,  in  615,  shows  us  that  residence  in  monasteries  was  not 
considered  necessary  for  women  who  took  the  vows,  and  that 
the  civil  power  had  to  be  invoked  to  prevent  their  marriage.2 
Indeed,  it  was  not  uncommon  for  men  to  turn  their  houses, 
nominally  at  least,  into  convents,  living  there  surrounded 
with  their  wives  and  families,  and  deriving  no  little  worldly 
profit  from  the  assumption  of  superior  piety,  to  the  scandal 
of  the  truly  religious.3  St.  Isidor  of  Seville,  about  the  same 
period,  copies  the  words  of  St.  Augustine  in  describing  the 
wandering  monastic  impostors  who  -lived  upon  the  credulous 
charity  of  the  faithful  ;4  and  he  also  enlarges  upon  the  dis- 


1  There  was  one  exception,  however, 
to  this  general  rule.  No  married  man 
was  allowed  to  become  a  monk  unless 
his  wife  assented,  and  likewise  became 
a  nun.  The  marriage  tie  was  too  sa- 
cred to  be  broken,  unless  both  parties 
agreed  simultaneously  to  embrace  the 
better  life.  Thus,  on  the  complaint 
of  a  wife,  Gregory  orders  her  husband 
to  be  forcibly  removed  from  the  mon- 
astery which  he  had  entered  and  to 
be  restored  to  her.  (Gregor.  I.  Lib.  xi. 
Epist.  50.)  We  shall  see  hereafter 
how  entirely  the  church  in  time  out- 
grew these  scruples,  and  how  insigni- 
ficant the  sacrament  of  marriage  be- 
came in  comparison  with  that  of 
ordination  or  the  vow  of  religion. 


2  Concil.  Parisiens.  V.  aim.  615,  c. 
xiii. — In  the  decree  of  Clotair  II.,  con- 
firming the  acts  of  this  council,  we 
find — "  Puellas  et  viduas  religiosas, 
aut  sanctimoniales,  qua?  se  Deo  vove- 
runt,  tam  quae  in  propriia  domibus  resi- 
dent, quam  qua3  in  monasteriis  positse 
sunt,  nullus  nee  per  praeceptum  nos- 
trum competat,  nee  trahere  nee  sibi 
in  conjugio  sociare  penitus  prresumat 
etc." — Edict.  Chlot".  II.  aim.  615,  c. 
xviii.  (Baluze). 

3  S.  Fructuosi  Bracarens.  Regul. 
Commun.  cap.  1. 

4  De  Ecclesiast.  Offic.  Lib.  n.  cap. 
xvi.  §  7. 


IRREGULARITIES    OF    THE    SYSTEM.  119 

graceful  license  of  the  acephali,  or  clerks  bound  by  no  rule, 
whose  vagabond  life  and  countless  numbers  were  an  infamy 
to  the  western  kingdoms  which  they  infested.1  The  quotation 
of  this  passage  by  Louis-le-Debonnaire,  in  his  attempt  to  re- 
form the  church,  shows  that  these  degraded  vagrants  con- 
tinued to  flourish  unchecked  in  the  ninth  century;2  and, 
indeed,  Smaragdus,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Eule  of  St. 
Benedict,  assures  us  that  the  evil  had  rather  increased  than 
diminished.3 

Monachism  was  but  one  application  of  the  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification by  works,  which,  by  the  enthusiasm  and  superstition 
of  ages,  was  gradually  built  into  a  vast  system  of  sacerdotal- 
ism. Through  it  were  eventually  opened  to  the  medieval 
church  sources  of  illimitable  power  and  wealth  by  means  of 
the  complicated  machinery  of  purgatory,  masses  for  the  dead, 
penances,  indulgences,  &c,  under  the  sole  control  of  the  cen- 
tral head,  to  whom  were  committed  the  power  of  the  keys  and 
the  dispensation  of  the  exhaustless  treasure  of  salvation 
bestowed  on  the  church  by  the  Eedeemer.  To  discuss  these 
collateral  themes,  however,  would  carry  us  too  far  from  our 
subject,  and  I  must  dismiss  them  with  the  remark  that  at  the 
period  now  under  consideration  there  could  have  been  no 
anticipation  of  these  ulterior  advantages  to  be  gained  by 
assuming  to  regulate  the  mode  in  which  individual  piety 
might  seek  to  propitiate  an  offended  God.  Sufficient  motives 
for  the  assumption  existed  in  the  evils  and  aspirations  of  the 
moment  without  our  anticipating  others  which  only  received 
their  fullest  development  under  the  skilful  logic  of  the 
Thomists. 


1  Solutos  atque  oberrantes,  sola  tur-  quidem  sordida  atque  infami  nume- 
pis  vita  complectitur  et  vaga,  ...  rositate  satis  superque  nostra  pars 
qnique  dum,  nullum  metuentes,  ex- ;  occidua  pollet. — Ibid.  Lib.  n.  c.  iii. 
plendce  voluptatis  suae  licentiam  con-  2  Ludov>  pu  de  Reform>  Eccies.  eap# 
sectantur,  quasi  ammalia  bruta,  liber-  100>  (Goldast>  Const.  imp.  m.  199.) 
tateacdesideriosuoieruntur,liabentes  | 

signura  religionis,  non  religionis  offi- !      3  Smaragd.     Comment,    in    Regul. 
cium,  hippocentauris   similes,   neque    Benedict,  c.  1. 
equi   neque   homines,    .    .    .    quorum 


Till. 

THE  BARBARIANS. 

While  the  Latin  church,  had  thus  been  engaged  in  its 
hopeless  combat  with  the  incurable  vices  of  a  worn-out 
civilization,  it  had  found  itself  confronted  by  a  new  and  essen- 
tially different  task.  The  Barbarians  who  wrenched  province 
I  after  province  from  the  feeble  grasp  of  the  Ca3sars  had  to  be 
(conquered,  or  religion  and  culture  would  be  involved  in  the 
wreck  which  blotted  out  the  political  system  of  the  Empire. 
The  destinies  of  the  future  hung  trembling  in  the  balance, 
and  it  might  not  be  an  uninteresting  speculation  to  consider 
what  had  been  the  present  condition  of  the  world  if  Westernl 
Europe  had  shared  the  fate  of  the  Bast,  and  had  fallen  undeiy 
the  domination  of  a  race  bigoted  in  its  own  belief  and  inca- 
pable of  learning  from  its  subjects.  Fortunately  for  mankind 
the  invaders  of  the  West  were  not  semi-civilized  and  self- 
satisfied;  their  belief  was  not  a  burning  zeal  for  a  faith 
sufficiently  elevated  to  meet  many  of  the  wants  of  the  soul; 
they  were  simple  barbarians,  who,  while  they  might  despise 
the  cowardly  voluptuaries  on  whom  they  trampled,  could  not 
fail  to  recognize  the  superiority  of  a  civilization  awful  even 
in  its  ruins.  Fortunately,  too,  the  Latin  church  was  a  more" 
compact  and  independently  organized  body  than  its  Eastern  | 
rival,  inspired  by  a  warmer  faith  and  a  more  resolute  am-  I 
bition.  It  faced  the  difficulties  of  its  new  position  with  con- 
summate tact  and  tireless  energy;  and  whether  its  adversaries 
were  Pagans  like  the  Franks,  or  Arians  like  the  Goths  and 
Burgundians,  by  alternate  pious  zeal  and  artful  energy  it 
triumphed  where  success  seemed  hopeless,  and  wnere  bare 
toleration  would  have  appeared  a  sufficient  victory. 

While  the  celibacy,  which  bound  every  ecclesiastic  to  the 
church  and  dissevered  all  other  ties,  may  doubtless  be  credited 


MEROVINGIAN   FRA  NCE.  121 

with  a  share  in  this  result,  it  introduced  new  elements  of  dis- 
order where  enough  existed  before.  The  chaste  purity  of  the 
Barbarians  at  their  advent  aroused  the  wondering  admiration 
of  Salvianus,  as  that  of  their  fathers  four  centuries  earlier 
had  won  the  severe  encomium  of  Tacitus;1  but  the  virtue 
which  sufficed  for  the  simplicity  of  the  German  forests  was  not 
long  proof  against  the  allurements  accumulated  by  the  cynicism 
of  Eoman  luxury.  At  first  the  wild  converts,  content  with 
the  battle-axe  and  javelin,  might  leave  the  holy  functions  of 
religion  to  their  new  subjects,  their  strength  scarcely  feeling 
the  restraint  of  a  faith  which  to  them  was  little  more  than  an 
idle  ceremony;  but  as  they  gradually  settled  down  in  their 
conquests,  and  recognized  that  the  high  places  of  the  church 
conferred  riches,  honor,  and  power,  they  coveted  the  prizes 
which  were  too  valuable  to  be  monopolized  by  an  inferior 
race.  Gradually  the  hierarchy  thus  became  filled  with  a  class 
of  warrior  bishops,  who,  however  efficient  in  maintaining  and 
extending  ecclesiastical  prerogatives,  were  not  likely  to  shed 
lustre  on  their  order  by  the  rigidity  of  their  virtue,  or  to 
remove,  by  a  strict  enforcement  of  discipline,  the  scandals  in- 
separable from  endless  civil  commotions. 

Eeference  has  been  made  above  to  the  perpetual  iteration  of 
the  canon  of  celibacy,  and  of  ingenious  devices  to  prevent  its 
violation,  by  the  numerous  councils  held  during  this  period, 
showing  at  once  the  disorders  which  prevailed  among  the 
clergy  and  the  fruitlessness  of  the  effort  to  repress  them. 
The  history  of  the  time  is  full  of  examples  illustrating  the 
various  phases  of  this  struggle. 

The  episcopal  chair,  which  at  an  earlier  period  had  been 
filled  by  the  votes  of  the  people,  and  which  subsequently 
came  under  the  control  of  the  Papacy,  was  at  this  time  a  gift 
in  the  hands  of  the  untamed  Merovingians,  who  carelessly 


1  Quamquam  severa  illic  matrimo-  mores  valent  quam  alibi  bona?  leges, 
nia  ;  nee  ullam  morum  partem  magis  ,  — De  Mor.  German,  c.  18,  19. 
laudaveris,nam  prope  soli  barbarorum  It  is  a  little  singular  that  Salvianus 
singulis  uxoribus  contenti  sunt.  .  .  names  the  Alamanni  as  the  only  ex- 
Paucissima  in  tarn  numerosa  gente  ■  ception  to  the  character  for  chastity 
adulteria ;  quorum  poena  praesens  et  :  which  he  bestows  on  the  Barbarians 
maritis  permissa.  .  .  Plnsque  ibi  boni  |  in  general. 


122 


THE    BARBARIANS 


bestowed  it  on  him  who  could  most  lavishly  fill  the  royal 
coffers,  or  who  had  earned  it  by  courtly  subservience  or  war- 
like prowess.  The  supple  Eoman  or  the  turbulent  Frank,  who 
perchance  could  not  recite  a  line  of  the  Mass,  thus  leaped  at 
once  from  the  laity  through  all  the  grades;1  and  as  he  was 
most  probably  married,  there  can  be  no  room  for  surprise  if 
the  rule  of  continence,  thus  suddenly  assumed  from  the  most 
worldly  motives,  should  often  prove  unendurable  for  those 
untrained  to  self-command.  When  a  man  of  repute  like 
Genebaldus,  married  to  the  niece  of  the  holy  St.  Eemy,  and 
placed  in  the  see  of  Laon,  could  not  restrain  his  passions  until 
after  the  appearance  of  a  son  and  daughter,  whom  he  named 
Latro  and  Yulpecula  in  confession  of  his  sin,2  it  was  scarcely 
to  be  expected  that  the  illiterate  and  untutored  nominees  of 
a  licentious  court  could  overcome  the  temptations  which  it 
required  the  virtue  of  a  Felix  of  Nantes  to  surmount — virtue 
which  must  have  been  somewhat  uncommon  to  attract  atten- 
tion and  merit  special  record.3  That  in  fact  they  could  not  or 
did  not  is  indicated  by  the  frequent  injunctions  of  the  councils 
that  bishops  must  regard  their  wives  as  sisters ;  while  a  canon 
promulgated  by  the  council  of  Macon,  in  581,  ordering  that 
no  woman  should  enter  the  chamber  of  a  bishop  without  two 
priests,  or  at  least  two  deacons,  in  her  company,  shows  how 
little  hesitation  there  was  in  publishing  to  the  world  the 


1  From  such  chance  allusions  as  are 
made  by  Gregory  of  Tours,  this  would 
almost  seem  to  he  the  general  rule, 
and  not  the  exception.  Thus  he  men- 
tions that  Apollinaris  obtained  the  see 
of  Rhodez  at  the  solicitation  of  his 
wife  and  sister  (Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  in. 
c.  2),  and  shortly  afterwards  the  same 
episcopate  is  filled  by  the  appointment 
of  "Innocentius  Gabalitanorum  comes" 
(Ibid.  Lib.  vi.  c.  38).  Sulpitius,  when 
nominated  to  that  of  Bourges,  "  ad 
clericatum  deductus,  episcopatum  .  .  . 
suscepit"  (Ibid.  Lib.  vi.  c.  39).  Bade- 
gisilus,  Clotair's  mayor  of  the  palace, 
received  the  bishopric  of  Le  Mans  "  qui 
tonsuratus,  gradus  quos  clerici  sorti- 
untur  ascensus,"  was  duly  installed 
(Ibid.  Lib.  vi.  c.  9).  Indeed,  in  his 
catalogue  of  the  Bishops  of  Tours, 
Gregory  specifies  of  Euphronius,  the 


eighteenth  bishop,  that  he  was  "  ab 
ineunte  setate  clericus,"  showing  how 
unusual  it  was  to  be  regularly  bred 
to  the  church. 

2  Hincmari  Vit.  S.  Remig.  c.  42. 

3  The  wife  of  Felix,  banished  from 
his  bed  on  his  elevation  to  the  episco- 
pate, rebelled  against  the  separation. 
Finding  her  husband  obdurate  to  her 
enticements,  she  was  filled  with 'jeal- 
ousy, believing  that  only  another  at- 
tachment could  account  for  his  cold- 
ness. Hoping  to  detect  his  infidelity, 
she  stole  into  the  chamber  where  he 
was  sleeping,  and  saw  on  his  breast  a 
lamb  shining  with  heavenly  light,  in- 
dicative of  the  peaceful  repose  which 
had  taken  the  place  of  all  earthly 
passions  in  his  heart. — Greg.  Turon. 
de  Glor.  Confess,  c.  78. 


MEROVINGIAN    FRANCE. 


123 


suspicions  that  were  generally  entertained.1  How  the  rule 
was  sometimes  obeyed  by  the  wild  prelates  of  the  age,  while 
trampling  upon  other  equally  well-known  canons,  is  exem- 
plified by  the  story  of  Macliavus  of  Britanny.  Conon,  Count 
of  Britanny,  had  made  way  with  three  of  his  brothers ;  the 
fourth,  Macliavus,  after  an  unsuccessful  conspiracy,  sought 
safety  in  flight,  entered  the  church,  and  was  created  Bishop 
of  Vannes.  °  On  the  death  of  Conon,  he  promptly  seized  the 
vacant  throne,  left  the  church,  threw  off  his  episcopal  robes, 
and  took  back  to  himself  the  wife  whom  he  had  quitted  on 
obtaining  the  see  of  Vannes— for  all  of  which  he  was  duly 
excommunicated  by  his  brother  prelates.2 

When  such  was  the  condition  of  morals  and  discipline  m 
the  high  places  of  the  church,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  if 
the  second  council  of  Tours,  in  567,  could  declare  that  the 
people  suspect,  not  indeed  all,  but  many  of  the  arch-priests, 
vicars,   deacons,   and    subdeacons,  of  maintaining   improper 
relations  with  their  wives,  and  should  command  that  no  one 
in  orders  should  visit  his  own  house  except  in  company  with 
a  subordinate  clerk,  without  whom,  moreover,  he  was  never 
to  sleep;  the  clerk  refusing  the  performance  of  the  duty  to 
be  whipped,  and  the  priest  neglecting  the  precaution  to  be 
deprived  of  communion  for  thirty  days.     Any  one  m  orders 
found  with  his  wife  was  to  be  excommunicated  for  a  year, 
deposed,  and  relegated  among  the  laity;  while  the  arch-priest 
who  neo-lected  the  enforcement  of  these  rules  was  to  be  im- 
prisoned on  bread  and  water  for  a  month.     An  equally  sug- 
gestive illustration  of  the  condition  of  society  is  afforded  by 
another  canon,  directed   against   the  frequent   marriages   of 
nuns  who  excused  themselves  on  the  ground  that  they  had 
taken  the  veil  to  avoid  the  risk  of  forcible  abduction.     Allu- 
sion is  made  to  the  laws  of  Childebert  and  Clotair,  maintained 
in  vigor  by  Charibert,  punishing  such  attempts  severely,  and 
girls  who  anticipate   them  are  directed  to   seek  temporary 
asylum  in  the  church  until  their  kindred  can  protect  them 
under  the  royal  authority,  or  find  suitable  husbands  for  them.3 


1  Concil.  Matiscon.  I.  c.  3. 

2  Greg.  Turou.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib.  IV.  c.  4. 

3  Concil.  Turon.  n.  c.  19,  20. 


124 


THE   BARBARIANS, 


That 'morals  were  not  much  better  among  the  Arhtn  Wisi- 
goths  of  Spain  than  among  the  true  believers  of  France  is 
shown  by  the  proceedings  of  the  third  council  of  Toledo, 
held  in  589  to  confirm  the  reunion  of  that  kingdom  with  the 
orthodox  church.  It  complains  that  the  converted  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons  are  found  to  be  publicly  living  with  their 
wives,  which  it  forbids  for  the  future  under  threat  of  degrading 
all  recalcitrants  to  the  rank  of  lector.1  The  conversion  of  the 
kingdom  to  Catholicism  did  not  improve  matters.  The  clergy 
continued  not  only  to  associate  with  their  wives,  but  also  to 
marry  openly,  for  the  secular  power  was  soon  afterwards 
forced  to  interfere,  and  King  Eecared  I.  issued  a  law  directing 
that  any  priest,  deacon,  or  subdeacon  connecting  himself  with 
a  woman  by  marriage  #r  otherwise,  should  be  separated  from 
his  guilty  consort  by  either  the  bishop  or  judge,  and  be 
punished  according  to  the  canons  of  the  church,  while  the 
unfortunate  woman  was  subjected  to  a  hundred  lashes  and 
denied  all  access  to  her  husband.  To  insure  the  enforcement 
of  the  edict,  the  heavy  mulct  of  two  pounds  of  gold  was 
levied  on  any  bishop  neglecting  his  duty  in  the  premises.2 
Eecared  also  interposed  to  put  a  stop  to  the  frequent  marriages 
of  nuns,  whose  separation  from  their  husbands  and  condign 
punishment  were  decreed,  with  the  enormous  fine  of  fi>e 
pounds  of  gold  exacted  of  the  careless  ecclesiastic  who  might 
neglect  to  carry  the  law  into  effect — a  fair  measure  of  the 
difficulties  experienced  in  enforcing  the  rule  of  celibacy.3 
This  legislation  had  little  effect,  for  a  half  century  later  the 
eighth  council  of  Toledo,  in  653,  shows  us  that  all  ranks  of 
the  clergy,  from  bishops  to  sub-deacons,  had  still  no  scruple 
in  publicly  maintaining  relations  with  wives  and  concubines;4 


1  Concil.  Toletan.  III.  c.  5.  Priestly 
marriage  formed  no  part  of  the  Arian 
doctrine,  but  as  the  heresy  originated 
prior  to  the  council  of  Nicsea,  and  pro- 
fessed no  obedience  to  that  or  any 
other  council  or  decretal,  it  was  left 
entirely  to  such  influence  as  indi- 
vidual asceticism  might  exercise. 
Having  no  acknowledged  head  to  pro- 
mulgate canons  or  to  cause  their 
observance,  no  rule  of  the  kind,  even 


if    theoretically   admitted,   could   be 
generally  enforced. 

2  L.  Wisigoth.  Lib.  hi.  Tit.  iv.  1. 
18.  This  law  is  preserved  in  the 
Fuero  Juzgo,  or  medieval  Romance 
version  of  the  code  (Lib.  in.  Tit.  iv. 

ley  18). 

3  L.  Wisigoth.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  v.  1.  2. 

4  Concil.  Toletan.  VIII.  ami.  653, 
can.  iv.  v.  vi. — These  measures  were 


SPAIN — ITALY.  125 

and,  despite   these  well-meant  efforts,   clerical   morals  went 
from  bad  to  worse  until  the  licentious  reign  of  King  Witiza 
broke  down  all  the  accustomed  barriers.     According  to  the 
monkish  chroniclers,  that  reckless  prince  issued,  in  706,  a  law 
authorizing  not  only  polygamy  but  unlimited  concubinage  to 
both  laity  and  clergy ;    a  privilege  of  which  it  is  not  un- 
reasonable, from  what  we  have  seen,  to  suppose  that  they 
largely  availed  themselves.1     There  seems  to  be  no  record  of 
any  remonstrance  on  the  part  of  the  Gothic  prelates,  and 
when,  three  years  later,  Pope  Constantine  took  cognizance  of 
the  innovation,  and  threatened  Witiza  with  dethronement  if  he 
should  not  abrogate  his  iniquitous  legislation,  the  monarch 
retorted  with  a  promise  to  repeat  the  exploits  of  his  prede- 
cessor  Alaric,  in  sacking  and  plundering  the  Apostolic  city^| 
It  is  a  little  singular,  however,  that  one  of  the  first  acts  of  the 
usurper,  Don  Eoderic,  in  711,  was  the  repeal  of  this  obnoxious 
law.2     If  he  had  any  intentions  of  undertaking  the  reform  of 
his    subjects'   morals,   however,    his   adventure   with   Count 
Julian's  daughter  and  the  Saracenic  invasion  caused  its  in- 
definite postponement. 

Italy  was  almost  equally  far  removed  from  the  ideal  purityl 
of  Jerome  and  Augustine.  Nothing  can  be  more  suggestive^ 
of  the  demoralization  of  her  church  than  the  permission 
granted  about  the  year  580  by  Pelagius  II.  for  the  elevation 
to  the  diaconate  of  a  clerk  at  Florence,  who  while  a  widower 
had  had  children  by  a  concubine.  What  renders  the  circum- 
stance peculiarly  significant  is  the  fact  that  the  Pope  pleads 
the  degeneracy  of  the  age  as  his  apology  for  this  laxity.3 


as   fruitless   as   the   preceding.      Cf. 
Concil.  Toletau.  IX.  aim.  655,  can.  x. 

1  Rex  Witiza  se  effrenate  prsecepi- 
tans  per  omne  genus  flagitii,  legem 
nequissimam  tulit ;  utmore  sara-(ce)- 
noruni  cuilibet  laico  et  clerico  liceret, 
quotquot  posset  alere,  uxores  et  con- 
cubinas  impune  donii  suae  retinere. — 
Liutprandi  Chron.  No.  174,  ann. 
706. 

2  Ibid.      No.    181    ann.    709;    No. 


188  ann.  711.  Without  entering  into 
the  question  of  the  correctness  with 
which  this  chronicle  lias  been  attribu- 
ted to  Liutprand  of  Cremona,  I  may 
say  that  it  has  every  appearance  of 
being  an  authentic  remnant  of  an- 
tiquity. (Cf.  Antonii  Biblioth.  Hispan. 
I.  585.) 

3  "Defectus  temporum  nostrorum, 
quibus  non  solum  merita  sed  corpora 
ipsa  hominum  defecerunt.  —  Pelagii 
PP.  II.  Epist.  xiv. 


126  THE    BARBARIANS. 

/  Such,  was  the  condition  of  the  Christian  world  when 
/  Gregory  the  Great,  in  590,  ascended  the  pontifical  throne.  He 
""was  too  devout  a  churchman  and  too  sagacious  a  statesman 
not  to  appreciate  thoroughly  the  importance  of  the  canon  in 
all  its  various  aspects — not  only  as  necessary  to  ecclesiastical 
purity  according  to  the  ideas  of  the  age,  but  also  as  a  prime 
element  in  the  influence  of  the  church  over  the  minds  of  the 
people,  as  well  as  an  essential  aid  in  extending  ecclesiastical 
power,  and  in  retaining  undiminished  the  enormous  pos- 
sessions acquired  by  the  church  through  the  munificence 
of  the  pious.  The  prevailing  laxity, .  indeed,  was  already 
threatening  serious  dilapidation  of  the  ecclesiastical  estates 
and  foundations.  How  clearly  this  was  understood  is  shown 
by  Pelagius  I.  in  557,  when  he  refused  for  a  year  to  permit 
the  consecration  of  a  bishop  elected  by  the  Syracusans.  On 
their  persisting  in  their  choice  he  wrote  to  the  Patrician 
Cethegus,  giving  as  the  reason  for  his  opposition  the  prelate's 
wife  and  children,  by  whom,  if  they  survive,  the  substance  of 
the  church  is  wont  to  be  jeopardized;1  and  his  consent  was 
finally  given  only  on  the  condition  that  the  bishop  elect 
should  provide  competent  security  against  any  conversion  of 
the  estate  of  the  diocese  for  the  benefit  of  his  family,  a 
detailed  statement  of  the  property  being  made  out  in  advance 
to  guard  against  attempted  infractions  of  the  agreement. 
That  this  was  not  a  merely  local  abuse  is  evident  from  a  law 
of  the  "Wisigoths,  which  provides  that  on  the  accession  of  any 
bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  an  accurate  inventory  of  all  church 
possessions  under  his  control  shall  be  made  by  five  freemen, 
and  that  after  his  death  an  inquest  shall  be  held  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  good  any  deficiencies  out  of  the  estate  of  the 
decedent,  and  forcing  the  restoration  of  anything  that  might 
have  been  alienated.2 

There  evidently  was  ample  motive  for  a  thorough  reforma- 
tion, and  Gregory  accordingly  addressed  himself  energetically 
to  the  work  of  enforcing  the  canons.     In  his  decretals  there 


1  Superstes  uxor  aut  filii,  per  quos 
ecclesiastica     solet     periclitari    sub- 


stantia.— Pelagii  PP.  I.  Cethego  Pa- 
tricio. 

2  L.  Wisigoth.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  i.  1.  2. 


GREGORY   THE   GREAT. 


127 


are  numerous  references  to  the  subject,  showing  that  he  lost 
no  opportunity  of  reviving  the  neglected  rules  of  discipline 
regarding  the  ordination  of  digami,1  the  residence  of  women, 
and  abstinence  from  all  intercourse  with  the  sex.2  In  his 
zeal  he  even  went  so  far  as  to  decree  that  any  one  guilty  of 
even  a  'single  lapse  from  virtue  should  be  forever  debarred 
from  the  ministry  of  the  altar3 — a  law  nullified  by  its  own 
severity,  which  rendered  its  observance  impossible.  There  is 
not  much  trace  in  contemporary  history  of  any  improvement 
resulting  from  these  efforts,  and  towards  the  very  close  of  his 
pontificate,  in  602,  we  find  him  entreating  Queen  Brunhilda 
to  exercise  her  power  in  restraining  the  still  unbridled  license 
of  the  Frankisk  clergy — a  task  which  he  assures  her  is  essen- 
tial if  she  desires  to  transmit  her  possessions  in  peace  to  her 
posterity.4  He  also  endeavored  to  reform  the  perennial  abuse 
of  the  residence  of  women,  a  reform  which  the  church  has 
been  vainly  attempting  ever  since  the  canon  of  Nica^a.5  That 
Gregory's  zeal,  however,  exercised  some  influence  is  mani- 
fested by  the  fact  that  tradition  in  the  Middle  Ages  occasion- 
ally associated  his  name  with  the  introduction  of  celibacy  in  the 
church.  The  impression  which  he  produced  is  shown  by  the 
wild  legend  which  relates  that,  soon  after  issuing  and  strictly 
enforcing  a  decretal  on  the  subject,  he  happened  to  have  his 
fish-ponds  drawn  off,  when  the  heads  of  no  less  than  six 
thousand  infants  were  found  in  them— the  offspring  of  eccle- 


1  Gregor.  I.  Lib.  xm.  Epist.  vi. — 
This  rule  had  come  to  be  very  gene- 
rally neglected.  The  importance  at- 
tached to  it,  however,  by  strict  disci- 
plinarians is  well  illustrated  in  the 
iirmness  displayed  by  John,  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  a  contemporary  of  Gre- 
gory, whose  bountiful  charity  had 
earned  for  him  the  title  of  Eleemosy- 
narius.  In  a  time  of  extreme  famine, 
a  wealthy  aspirant  offered  him  200,000 
bushels  of  corn  and  100  pounds  of  gold 
for  the  grade  of  deacon.  He  had  un- 
luckily been  twice  married,  and  John 
refused  the  dazzling  bribe,  although 
the  episcopal  treasury  had  been  ex- 
hausted in  relieving  the  necessities 
of  the  suffering  people.  (Thomassin, 
Discip.  de  l'Eglise,  Pt.  n.  Liv.  3,  c.  15.) 


2  Gregor.  I.  Lib.  xm.  Epist.  35,  36. 

3  Gregor.  I.  Lib.  iv.  Epist.  26  ;  Lib. 
v.  Epist.  3;  Lib.  vm.  Epist.  24.— 
Similar  attempts  had  previously  been 
made  by  sundry  provincial  councils. 
In  the  case  of  Andrew,  Bishop  of  Ta- 
rentum,  who  was  accused  of  maintain- 
ing relations  with  a  former  concubine, 
Gregory,  recognizing  the  impossibility 
of  obtaining  proofs,  leaves  it  to  his 
own  conscience.  If  he  has  had  any 
commerce  with  her  since  his  ordina- 
tion, he  is  commanded  at  once  to 
resign  his  position  as  the  only  mode 
of  insuring  his  salvation.  (Gregor. 
Lib.  in.  Epist.  45,  46.) 

4  Gregor.  I.  Lib.  xi.  Epist.  69. 

5  Ibid.  Lib.  ix.  Epist.  106. 


128  THE    BARBARIANS. 

siastics,  destroyed  to  avoid  detection— which  filled  him  with 
so  much  horror  that  he  abandoned  the  vain  attempt.1     Yet 
in  Italy  the  residence. of  wives  was  still  permitted  to  those 
in  orders,  under  the  restriction  that  they  should  be  treated  as 
sisters  ;2  and  Gregory  relates  as  worthy  of  all  imitation  the 
case  of  a  holy  priest  of  Nursia  who,  following  the  example 
of  the  saints  in  depriving  himself  of  even  lawful  indulgences, 
had  persistently  relegated  his  wife  to  a  distance.     When  at 
length  he  lay  on  his  death-bed,  to  all  appearance  inanimate, 
the  wife  came  to  bid  him  a  last  farewell,  and  placed  a  mirror 
to  his  lips,  to  see  whether  life  was  yet  extinct.     Her  kindly 
ministrations  roused  the  dominant  asceticism  in  his  expiring 
soul,  and  he  gathered  strength  enough  to  exclaim,  "Woman, 
depart !     Take  away  the  straw,  for  there  is  yet  fire  here"— 
which  supreme  effort  of  self-immolation  procured  him  on  the 
instant  a  beatific  vision  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  during 
which  he  lapsed  ecstatically  into  eternity.3 

In  considering  so  thoroughly  artificial  a  system  of  morality, 
it  is  perhaps  scarcely  worth  while  to  inquire  into  the  value 
of  a  virtue  which  could  only  be  preserved  by  shunning  temp- 
tation with  so  scrupulous  a  care. 

1  Udalric.  Bamberg.  Cod.  Lib.  it.  |  2  Gregor.  I.  Lib.  i.  Epist.  52;  Lib. 
Epist.  10.  J  ix.  Epist.  60. 

3  Gregor.  I.  Dial.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  xi. 


1, 1  B  U  A       l 

UNIVKUS1TY   Of 
(   ALIKOIJSIA. 


THE  CARLOYINGIANS. 

EVEN  the  energy  and  authority  of  Gregory  the  Great  were 
powerless  to   restore   order  in  the  chaos  of  an  utterly  de- 
moralized society.     In  Spain,  the  languishing  empire  of  the 
Wisigoths  was  fast  sinking  under  the  imbecility  which  invited 
the  easy  conquest  of  the  Saracens.      In   France,  Brunhilda 
and  Fredegonda  were  inflaming  the  fierce  contentions  which 
eventually  destroyed   the   Merovingian  dynasty,  and  which 
abandoned  the  kingdom  at  once  to  the  vices  of  civilization 
and  the  savage  atrocities  of  barbarism.1     In  Italy,  the  Lom- 
bards, more  detested  than  any  of  their  predecessors,  by  their 
ceaseless  ravages  made  the  Ostrogothic  rule  regretted,  and 
gleaned  with  their  swords  such  scanty  remnants  of  plunder 
as  had  escaped  the  hordes  which  had  successively  swept  from 
the  gloomy  forests  of  the  North  across  the  rich  valleys  and  ' 
fertile  plains  of  the  mistress  of  the  world.     Anarchy  and 
confusion  everywhere  scarce  offered  a  field  for  the  exercise  of 
the  humbler  virtues,  nor  could  the  church  expect  to  escape 
the  corruption  which  infected   every  class  from  which   she   \ 
could  draw  her  recruits.     Still,  amid  the  crowd  of  turbulent 
and  worldly  ecclesiastics,  whose  only  aim  was  the  gratification 
of  the  senses  or  the  success  of  criminal  ambition,  some  holy 
men  were  to  be  found  who  sought  the  mountain  and  forest  as  / 
a  refuge  from  the  ceaseless  and  all-pervading  disorder  around  ' 
them.    St.  Gall  and  St.  Columba,  Willibrod  and  Boniface,  were 
types  of  these.     Devoted  to  the  severest  asceticism,  burying 

1  In  649  we  find  Amandus,  Bishop  dissuade  him  from  his  purpose,  and 

of  Maastricht,  resigning  his  office  on  urged  his  proceeding  with  the  utmost 

account    of   the    impossibility  of  en-  rigor  against  all  transgressors.  (Hartz- 

forcing  the  canons  among  his  priests  heim  Concil.  German.  I.  28.) 
and  deacons.    Martin  I.  endeavored  to 
9 


130  THE   CARLOVINGIANS. 

themselves  in  the  wilderness  and  subsisting  on  such  simple 
fare  as  the  labor  of  their  hands  could  wring  from  a  savage 
land,  the  selfishness  of  the  anchorite  did  not  extinguish  in 
them  the  larger  aims  of  the  Christian,  and  by  their  civilizing 
labors  among  the  heathen  they  proved  themselves  worthy 
disciples  of  the  Apostles. 

Thicker  grew  the  darkness  as  Tank  drove  the  Gothic  fugi- 
tives before  him  on  the  plains  of  Xeres,  and  as  the  house 
of  Pepin  d'Heristel  gradually  supplanted  the  long-haired 
descendants  of  Clovis.  The  Austrasian  Mayors  of  the  Palace 
had  scanty  reverence  for  mitre  and  crozier,  and  it  is  a  proof 
how  little  hold  the  clergy  had  earned  upon  the  respect  and 
affection  of  the  people,  when  the  usurpers  in  that  long  revo- 
lution did  not  find  it  necessary  to  conciliate  their  support. 
In  fact,  the  policy  of  those  shrewd  and  able  men  was  rather 
to  oppress  the  church  and  to  parcel  out  its  wealth  and  digni- 
ties among  their  warriors,  who  made  no  pretence  of  piety  nor 
deigned  to  undertake  the  mockery  of  religious  duties.  Eome 
could  interpose  no  resistance  to  these  abuses,  for,  involved 
alternately  in  strife  with  the  Lombards  and  the  Iconoclastic 
Emperors,  the  Popes  implored  the  aid  of  the  oppressor  him- 
self, and  were  in  no  position  to  protest  against  the  aggressions 
which  he  might  commit  at  home. 

In  Italy,  the  condition  of  discipline  may  be  inferred  from 
the  fact  that,  in  721,  Gregory  II.  considered  it  necessary  to 
call  a  synod  for  the  special  purpose  of  condemning  incestuous 
unions  and  the  marriages  of  nuns,  which  he  declared  were 
openly  practised,1  and  the  canons  then  promulgated  received 
so  little  attention  that  they  had  to  be  repeated  by  another 
synod  in  732. 2  In  France,  of  course,  it  was  even  worse.  For 
eighty  years  scarce  a  council  was  held;  no  attempts  were 
made  to  renew  or  enforce  the  rules  of  discipline,  and  the 
observances  of  religion  were  at  length  well  nigh  forgotten. 
In  726,  Boniface  even  felt  scruples  as  to  associating  in  ordi- 
nary intercourse  with  men  so  licentious  and  depraved  as  the 


1  Hinc  namque  est  quod  ingemiscens  '  sacratas  foeminas  ducere  prsesurnant 
dico,  quia  populi  Christian!    aliquos    mulieres,  et    propinquas  in  conjugio 


per  provinciam  Italiarn  coinmorantes, 
audio  temere  contra  Catholicam  fidem 
et  patrum  statuta  patrare,  ita  ut  Deo 


socieut. — Concil.  Roman,  ann.  721. 
2  Chron.  Gradensis  Supplement. 


THEY  SEEK  ALLIANCE  WITH  THE  CHURCH.  131 


Frankish  bishops  and  priests,  and  he  applied  to  Gregory  II: 
for  the  solution  of  his  doubts.  Gregory,  in  reply,  ordered" 
him  to  employ  argument  in  endeavoring  to  convince  them  of 
their  errors,  and  by  no  means  to  withdraw  himself  from  their 
society,1  a  politic  toleration  of  vice  contrasting  strangely  with 
his  fierce  defiance  of  the  iconoclastic  heresy  of  Leo  the  Isau- 
rian,  when  he  risked  the  papacy  itself  in  his  eagerness  to 
preserve  his  beloved  images. 

When,  however,  the  new  dynasty  began  to  assume  a 
permanent  position,  it  sought  to  strengthen  itself  by  the 
influence  of  the  church.  Like  the  modern  Charlemagne,  it] 
saw  in  a  restoration  of  religion  a  means  of  assuring  its  sta^ 
bility  by  linking  its  fortunes  with  those  of  the  hierarchy.  X 
radical  in  opposition  becomes  of  necessity  a  conservative  in 
power ;  and  the  arts  which  had  served  to  supplant  the  here- 
ditary occupants  of  the  throne  were  no  longer  advisable  after 
success  had  indicated  a  new  line  of  policy.  As  Clovis 
embraced  Christianity  in  order  to  consolidate  his  conquests 
into  an  empire,  so  Carloman  and  Pepin-le-Bref  sought  the 
sanction  of  religion  to  consecrate  their  power  to  their  de- 
scendants, and  the  Carlovingian  system  thenceforth  became 
that  of  law  and  order,  organizing  a  firm  and  settled  govern- 
ment out  of  the  anarchical  chaos  of  social  elements. 

It  was  the  pious  Carloman  who  first  saw  clearly  how  neces-^ 
sary  was  the  aid  of  the  church  in  any  attempt  to  introduce 
civilization  and  subordination  among  his  turbulent  subjects. 
Immediately  on  his  accession,  he  called  upon  St.  Boniface  to 
assist  him  in  the  work,  and  the  Apostle  of  Germany  under- 
took the  arduous  task.  How  arduous  it  was  may  be  con- 
ceived from  his  description  of  the  utterly  demoralized  condi- 
tion of  the  clergy,  when  he  appealed  to  Pope  Zachary  for 
advice  and  authority  to  assist  in  eradicating  the  frightful 
promiscuous  licentiousness  which  was  displayed  with  careless 
cynicism  throughout  all  grades  of  the  ecclesiastical  body.2 


1  Gregor.  PP.  II.  Epist.  14  cap.  12. 

2  Modo  autem  maxima  ex  parte 
episcopales  sedes  traditse  sunt  laicis 
cupidis  ad  possidendum,  vel  adulte- 
ratis  clericis,  scortatoribus  et  publi- 


canis  sseculariter  ad  perfruendum  .  .  . 
Si  invenero  inter  illos  diaconos  quos 
nominant,  qui  a  pueritia  sua  semper 
in  stupris,  semper  in  adulteriis  et  in 
omnibus  semper  spurcitiis  vitam  du- 


132 


THE    CARLOVINGIANS 


The  details  are  too  disgusting  for  translation,  but  the  state- 
ment can  readily  be  believed  when  we  see  what  manner  of 
men  filled  the  controlling  positions  in  the  hierarchy. 

Charles  Martel  had  driven  out  St.  Eigobert,  Archbishop  of 
Eheims,  and  had  bestowed  that  primatial  see  on  one  of  his 
warriors  named  Milo,  who  soon  succeeded  in  likewise  obtain- 
ing possession  of  the  equally  important  archiepiscopate  of 
Treves.1  He  is  described  as  being  a  clerk  in  tonsure,  but  in 
every  other  respect  an  irreligious  laic,  yet  Boniface,  with  all 
the  aid  of  his  royal  patrons,  was  unable  to  oust  him  from  his 
inappropriate  dignities,  and  in  752,  ten  years  after  the  com- 
mencement of  his  reforms,  we  find  Pope  Zachary,  in  response 
to  an  appeal  for  advice,  counselling  him  to  leave  Milo  and 
other  similar  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing  to  the  divine  ven- 
geance.2 These  men  openly  defied  all  attempts  to  Remove 
them.  One,  who  is  described  as  "  pugnator  et  fornicator," 
gave  up,  it  is  true,  the  spiritualities  of  his  see,  but  held  to  the 
temporalities  with  a  gripe  that  nothing  could  loosen ;  another 
utterly  disregarded  the  excommunications  launched  at  his  head, 
and  Zachary  and  Boniface  at  last  were,  fain  to  abandon  him  to 
his  evil  courses.3  Somewhat  more  success,  indeed,  he  had" 
with  Servilio,  son  and  successor  to  Geroldus,  Bishop  of  Mainz* 


centes,  sub  tali  testimonio  venerunt 
ad  diaconatum,  et  modo  in  diaconatu 
concubinas  quatuor  vel  quinque  vel 
plures  noctu  in  lecto  babentes,  evan- 
gelium  tanien  legere  et  diaconos  se 
nominare  non  erubeseunt,  nee  metu- 
unt :  et  sic  in  talibus  incestis  ad  ordi- 
nem  presbyteratus  venientes,  in  iis- 
dem  peccatis  perdurantes,  et  peccata 
peccatis  adjicientes,  presbyteratus  of- 
ficio fuugentes,  dicunt  se  pro  populo 
posse  intercedere,  et  sacras  oblationes 
offerre.  Novissime,  quod  pejus  est. 
sub  talibus  testimoniis  per  gradus  sin- 
gulos  ascendentes,  ordinantur  et  no- 
minantur  episcopi.  Si  usquam  tales 
invenero  inter  illos,  rogo  ut  habeam 
prseceptum  et  conscriptum  auctorita- 
tis  vestrse,  quid  de  talibus  diffiniatis, 
et  per  responsum  Apostolicum  convin- 
cantur  et  arguantur  peccatores. — Bo- 
nifacii  Epist.  132. 

1  Milo  quidam,  tonsura  clericus,  mo- 
ribus,  habitu,  et  actu  irreligiosus  lai- 


cus,  episcopia  Remorum  ac  Treviro- 
rum  usurpans  insimul,  per  multos 
annos  pessumdederit.  —  Hincmar. 
Epist.  xxx.  c.  20. — Sola  tonsura  cle- 
rico,  qui  secum  processerat  ad  bel- 
lum. — Flodoard.  Hist.  Remens.  Lib. 
II.  c.  12. — It  was  for  tbis  especially, 
among  bis  numerous  similar  mis- 
deeds, tbat  Charles  Martel  was  con- 
demned to  eternal  torture.  St.  Eu- 
cherius  in  a  vision  saw  him  plunged 
into  the  depths  of  Hell,  and  on  con- 
sulting St.  Boniface  and  Fulrad,  Abbot 
of  St.  Denis,  it  was  resolved  to  open 
Charles'  tomb.  The  only  tenant  of 
the  sepulchre  was  found  to  be  a  ser- 
pent, and  the  walls  were  blackened  as 
though  by  fire,  thus  proving  the  truth 
of  the  revelation  and  holding  out  an 
awful  warning  to  similar  wrong  doers 
for  the  future.    (Flodoard.  loc.  cit.) 

2  Bonifacii  Epist.  142. 

3  Ibid. 


REFORMS   OF    BONIFACE.  133 

The  latter,  accompanying  Carloman  in  an  expedition  against 
the  Saxons,  was  killed  in  battle.  Bishop  Servilio,  in  another 
foray,  recognized  his  father's  slayer,  invited  him  to  a  friendly 
interview,  and  treacherously  stabbed  him,  exclaiming,  in  the 
rude  poetry  of  the  chronicler  "  Accipe  jam  ferrum  quo  patrem 
vindico  carum."  This  act  of  filial  piety  was  not  looked  upon.- 
as  unclerical,  until  Boniface  took  it  up ;  Servilio  was  finally 
forced  to  abandon  the  see  of  Mainz,  and  it  was  given  to  Boni- 
face himself.1  When  such  were  the  prelates,  it  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  rules  of  abstinence  and  asceticism  received 
much  attention  from  their  subordinates.  Boniface  admits,  in. 
an  epistle  to  King  Bcgberht,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  uni- 
versal licentiousness,  he  was  compelled  to  restore  the  guilty  • 
to  their  functions  after  penitence,  as  the  canonical  punish- 
ment of  dismissal  would  leave  none  to  perform  the  sacred 
offices.2 

How  much  of  this  was  indiscriminate  concubinage,  and 
how  much  was  merely  intercourse  with  legitimate  wives,  we 
have  no  means  of  ascertaining.  The  latter  Boniface  succeeded 
in  suppressing,  for  the  church  could  control  her  sacraments.3 
The  former  was  beyond  his  power. 

Armed  with  fall  authority  from  Pope  Zachary,  Carloman 
and  Boniface  commenced  the  labor  of  reducing  to  order  this 
chaos  of  passion  and  license.  Under  their  auspices  a  synod 
was  held  April  23,  742,  in  which  all  unchaste  priests  and 
deacons  were  declared  incapable  of  holding  benefices,  were 
degraded  and  forced  to  do  penance.  Bishops  were  required 
to  have  a  witness  to  testify  to  the  purity  of  their  lives  and 
doctrines,  before  they  could  perform  their  episcopal  functions. 
For  all  future  lapses  from  virtue,  priests  were  to  be  severely 
whipped  and  imprisoned  for  two  years  on  bread  and  water, 
with  prolongation  of  the  punishment  at  the  discretion  of  their 
bishops.  Other  ecclesiastics,  monks  and  nuns,  were  to  be 
whipped  thrice  and  similarly  imprisoned  for  one  year,  besides 


1  Otlilon.  Vit.  S.  Bonifac.  Lib.  i.  c.  j  narura     copula     partim     exhortante 
44  •  j  sancto  viro  separata  est,  quam  etiam 

2  Bonifacii  Epist.  85.  !  olericorum  nefanA  cum  uxoribus  con- 

*  junctiq  sejuncta  ac  separata. — Willi  - 

3  Et  tarn  laicorum  injusta  concubi-    bald.  Vit.  S.  Bonifac.  c.  9. 


134 


THE   CARLOVINGIANS." 


the  stigma  of  having  the  head  shaved.  All  monasteries, 
moreover,  were  to  adopt  and  .follow  rigidly  the  rule  of  St. 
Benedict.1 

The  stringency  of  these  measures  shows  not  only  the  ex- 
tent of  the  evil  requiring  such  means  of  cure,  but  the  fixed 
determination  of  the  authorities  to  effect  their  purpose.  The 
clergy,  however,  did  not  submit  without  resistance.  It  is 
probable  that  they  stirred  up  the  people,  and  that  signs  of 
general  disapprobation  were  manifested  at  a  rigor  so  extreme 
in  punishing  faults  which  for  more  than  two  generations  had 
passed  wholly  unnoticed,  for  during  the  same  year  Zachary 
addressed  an  epistle  to  the  Franks  with  the  object  of  enlisting 
them  in  the  cause.  The  ill-success  of  their  arms  against  the 
Pagans  he  attributes  to  the  vices  of  their  clergy,  and  he 
promises  them  that  if  they  show  themselves  obedient  to 
Boniface,  and  if  they  can  enjoy  the  prayers  of  pure  and  holy 
priests,  they  shall  in  future  have  an  easy  triumph  over  their 
heathen  foes.2  Yet  many  adulterous  priests  and  bishops, 
noted  for  the  infamy  of  their  lives,  pretended  that  they  had 
received  from  Eome  itself  dispensations  to  continue  in  their 
ministry  —  an  allegation  which  Zachary  of  course  repelled 
with  indignation.3 

Carloman,  however,  pursued  his  self-imposed  task  without 
flinching.  On  March  1st,  743,  he  held  another  synod  at 
Leptines,  where  the  clergy  promised  to  observe  the  ancient 
canons,  and  to  restore  the  discipline  of  the  church.  The 
statutes  enacted  the  previous  year  were  again  declared  to  be 
in  full  vigor  for  future  offences,  while  for  previous  ones 
penitence  and  degradation  were  once  more  decreed.4 

These  regulations  affected  only  Austrasia,  the  German 
portion  of  the  Frankish  empire,  ruled  by  Carloman.  His 
brother,  Pepin-le-Bref,  who  governed  Neustria,  or  France,  was 


1  Capit.  Caroloman.  ami.  742  c.  1, 
3,6. 

2  Et  durn  hsec  ita  sint,  et  tales  in 
vobis  fuerint  sacerdotes,  quoinodo  vic- 
tores  contra  vestros  inimicos  esse  po- 
teritis  ?  Nam  si  mundos  et  castos  ab 
omni  fornicatione  et  homicidio  liberos 
habueritis  sacerdotes,  ut  sacri  prseci- 
piunt  canones,  et  nostra  vice  prsedicat 


prsefatus  Bonifacius,  frater  noster,  et 
ei  in  omnibus  obedientes  extiteritis, 
nulla  gens  ante  conspectum  vestrum 
stabit,  sed  corruent  ante  faciem  ves- 
tram  omnes  pagan  se  gentes,  et  eritis 
victores. — Bonifacii  Epist.  137. 

3  Ibid.  Epist.  132,  142. 

4  Capit.  Caroloman.  ann.  743  c.  1. 


RESISTANCE   OF    THE   CLERGY 


135 


less  pious,  and  had  not  apparently  as  yet  recognized  the  policy 
of  reforming  out  of  their  possessions  the  warrior  vassals  whom 
his  father  had  gratified  with  ecclesiastical  benefices.  At 
length,  however,  he  was  induced  to  lend  his  aid,  and  in  744 
he  assembled  a  synod  at  Soissons  for  the  purpose.  So  com- 
pletely had  the  discipline  of  the  church  been  neglected  and 
forgotten,  that  Pepin  was  obliged  to  appeal  to  Pope  Zachary 
for  an  authoritative  declaration  as  to  the  grades  in  which  mar- 
riage was  prohibited.1  Yet  his  measures  were  but  lukewarm, 
for  he  contented  himself  with  simply  forbidding  unchastity 
in  priests,  the  marriage  of  nuns,  and  the  residence  of  stranger 
women  with  clerks,  no  special  punishment  being  threatened, 
beyond  a  general  allusion  to  existing  laws.2 

Thus  assailed  by  both  the  supreme  ecclesiastical  and  tempo- 
ral authorities,  the  clergy  still  were  stubborn.  Some  defended 
themselves  as  being  legitimately  entitled  to  have  a  concu- 
bine— or  rather,  we  may  presume,  a  wife.  Among  these  we 
find  a  certain  Bishop  Clement  described  as  a  pestilent  here- 
siarch,  with  followers  who  maintained  that  his  two  children, 
born  during  his  prelacy,  did  not  unfit  him  for  his  episcopal 
functions;  and  a  synod  held  in  Rome,  October  31st,  745,  was 
required  for  his  condemnation,  the  local  authorities  apparently 
proving  powerless.  Even  this  was  not  sufficient,  for  in  Janu- 
ary, 747,  we  find  Zachary  directing  Boniface  to  bring  him 
before  a  local  council,  and  if  he  still  proved  contumacious, 
to  refer  the  matter  again  to  Rome.3  Others,  again,  unwilling 
to  forego  their  secular  mode  of  existence,  or  to  abandon  the 
livelihood  afforded  by  the  church,  were  numerous  and  hardy 
enough  to  ask  Pepin  and  Carloman  to  set  apart  for  them 
churches  and  monasteries  in  which  they  could  live  as  they 
were  accustomed  to  do.  So  nearly  did  they  succeed  in  this 
attempt,  that  Boniface  found  it  necessary  to  appeal  to  Zachary 
to  prevent  so  flagrant  an  infraction  of  the  canons,  and  Zachary 
wrote  to  the  princes  with  instructions  as  to  the  mode  of  an- 
swering the  petition.4     Others,  still  more  audacious,  assailed 


1  Zachar.  PP.  Epist.  8,  c.  11,  18. 

2  Pippin!  Capit.  ann.  744  c.  4,  8,  9. 


3  Bonifac.  Epist.  135,  139  (Zachar. 
PP.  Epist.  9). 

*  Othlon.  Vit.  S.  Bonif.  Lib.  n.  c.  11. 


136  THE    CARLOVINGIANS. 

Boniface  in  every  way,  endeavored  to  weary  him  out,  and 
even,  rightly  regarding  him  as  the  cause  of  their  persecution 
and  tribulations,  made  attempts  upon  his  life.1 

That  he  should  have  escaped,  indeed,  is  surprising,  when 
the  character  of  the  age  is  considered,  and  the  nature  of  the 
evils  inflicted  on  those  who  must  have  regarded  the  reform 
as  a  wanton  outrage  on  their  rights.  As  late  as  748,  Boniface 
describes  the  false  bishops  and  priests,  sacrilegious  and  wan- 
dering hypocrites  and  adulterers,  as  much  more  numerous 
than  those  who  as  yet  had  been  forced  to  compliance  with 
the  rules.  Driven  from  the  churches,  but  supported  by  the 
sympathizing  people,  they  performed  their  ministry  among 
the  fields  and  in  the  cabins  of  the  peasants,  who  concealed 
them  from  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.2  This  is  not  a  de- 
scription of  mere  sensual  worldlings,  and  it  is  probable  that 
by  this  time  persecution  had  ranged  the  evil-disposed  on  the 
winning  side.  Those  who  thus  exercised  their  ministry  in 
secret  and  in  wretchedness,  retaining  the  veneration  of  the 
people,  were  therefore  men  who  believed  themselves  honor- 
ably and  legitimately  married,  and  who  were  incapable  of 
sacrificing  wife  and  children  for  worldly  advantage  or  in  blind 
obedience  to  a  rule  which  to  them  was  novel,  unnatural,  and 
indefensible. 

Boniface,  however,  escaped  from  the  vengeful  efforts  of 
those  who  suffered  from  his  zeal,  to  fall,  in  755,  under  the 
sword  of  the  equally  ungrateful  Frisians.  It  is  probable 
that  up  to  the  time  of  his  death  he  was  occupied  with  the 
reformation  of  the  clergy  in  conjunction  with  his  missionary 
labors,  for  in  752  we  still  find  him  engaged  in  the  hopeless 
endeavor  to  eject  the  unclerical  prelates,  who  even  yet  held 


1  Bonifacii  Epist.  135. — S.  Ludgeri 
Vit.  S.  Bonifacii. 

2  Eos  autem  quos  reperisse  affata 
est  fraternitas  tua  pseudosacerdotes 
multo  majores  mimeri  quam  Catho- 
licos,  erroneos  siinulatores  sub  nomine 
episcoporum  vel  presbyterorum,  qui 
nunquam  ab  episcopis  Catbolicis  fue- 


adulteros,  sacrilegos,  bypocritas  et 
multos  servos  tonsuratos.  .  .  Qui  sine 
episcopo,  proprio  arbitrio  viventes, 
populares  defensores  babentes,  contra 
episcopos,  ut  sceleratos  mores  eorum 
non  confringant,  seorsum  populum 
consentaneum  congregant,  et  illud 
erroneum  ministerium,  non  in  ecclesia 


runt   ordinati,    illudentes    populo    et  C*  h°llCa>  sed  P«r  f?restia   lo«a>  P?r 

ministeria   ecolesi*  confundentes    et  ^1  as  rusticorum,  ubi  eorum  impenta 

rontnrbantes     aut    falsos     trvrova^os  stultltia   celan    episcopos   possit,  per- 

contuibantes,  aut  talsos,  gyrovagos,  petrantj  &0..»_Bonifacii  Epist.  140. 


REORGANIZATION    BY    PE  PIN-  LE-B  R  EF  .       137 

over  from  the  iron  age  of  Charles  Martel.  His  disappear- 
ance from  the  scene,  however,  made  but  little  change  in  the 
movement  which  had  owed  so  much  to  his  zeal. 

In  747  Carloman's  pious  aspirations  had  led  him  from  a 
throne  to  a  cloister,  and  the  monastery  of  Monte  Cassino  wel- 
comed its  most  illustrious  inmate.  Pepin  received  the  whole 
vast  kingdom,  and  his  ambitious  designs  drew  him  daily 
closer  to  the  church,  the  importance  of  whose  support  he 
commenced  to  appreciate.  His  policy,  in  consolidating  theV 
power  of  his  house  and  in  founding  a  new  dynasty,  led  him 
necessarily  to  reorganize  the  anarchical  elements  of  society. 
As  an  acknowledged  monarch,  a  regularly  constituted  hier- 
archjr  and  recognized  subordination  to  the  laws,  both  civil 
and  ecclesiastical,  were  requisite  to  the  success  of  his  govern- 
ment and  to  the  establishment  of  his  race.  Accordingly,  we 
find  him  carrying  out  systematically  the  work  commenced  by 
Carloman  and  Boniface,  to  which  at  first  his  support  had 
been  rather  negative  than  positive. 

Six  weeks  after  the  martyrdom  of  Boniface,  Pepin  held  a 
synod  in  his  royal  palace  of  Verneuil,  in  which  this  tendency 
is  very  apparent.  Full  power  was  given  to  the  bishops  in 
their  respective  dioceses  to  enforce  the  canons  of  the  church 
on  the  clergy,  the  monks,  and  the  laity.  The  monasteries 
were  especially  intrusted  to  the  episcopal  care,  and  means 
were  provided  for  reducing  the  refractory  to  submission. 
The  rule  of  Benedict  was  proclaimed  as  in  force  in  all  con- 
ventual establishments,  and  cloistered  residence  was  strictly 
enjoined.  All  ecclesiastics  were  ordered  to  pay  implicit  obe- 
dience to  their  bishops,  and  this  was  secured  by  the  power 
of  excommunication,  which  was  no  longer,  as  in  earlier  ages, 
the  simple  suspension  from  religious  privileges,  but  was  a 
ban  which  deprived  the  offender  of  all  association  with  his 
fellows,  and  exposed  him,  if  contumacious,  to  exile  by  the 
secular  power.  By  the  appointment  of  metropolitans,  a  tri- 
bunal of  higher  resort  was  instituted,  while  two  synods  to  be 
held  each  year  gave  the  opportunity  both  of  legislation  and 
of  final  judgment.     Submission  to  their  decisions  was  insured 


138 


THE   CARLOVINGIANS, 


by  threatening  stripes  to  all  who  should  appeal  from  them  to 
the  royal  court.1 

Such  are  the  main  features,  as  far  as  they  relate  to  our 
subject,  of  this  Capitulary,  which  so  strikingly  reveals  the 
organizing  system  of  the  Carlovingian  polity.  Carried  out 
by  the  rare  intelligence  and  vigor  of  Charlemagne,  it  gave  a 
precocious  development  of  civilization  to  Europe,  transitory 
because  in  advance  of  the  age,  and  because  it  was  based  on 
the  intellectual  force  of  the  ruler,  and  not  on  the  virtue  and 
cultivation  of  a  people  as  yet  too  barbarous  to  appreciate  it. 

For  a  century  we  hear  nothing  more  of  sacerdotal  mar- 
riage— and  yet  it  may  be  doubted  whether  clerical  morality 
had  really  been  improved  by  the  well-meant  reforms  of  Boni- 
face. These  were  followed  up  by  Charlemagne  -with  all  of 
his  resistless  energy,  and  the  importance  which  he  attached 
to  the  subject  is  shown  by  an  epistle  of  Adrian  I.  denying 
certain  assertions  made  to  the  Frankish  sovereign,  inculpating 
the  purity  of  the  Roman  clergy.  Adrian,  in  defending  his 
flock,  assumes  that  the  object  of  the  slanders  can  only  have 
been  to  produce  a  quarrel  between  himself  and  Charlemagne, 
who  must  evidently  have  made  strong  representations  on  the 
subject  to  the  Pontiff.2  Under  such  pressure  perhaps  there 
was  something  less  of  shameless  licentiousness ;  the  episcopal 
chairs  were  no  longer  defiled  by  the  cynical  lubricity  of  un- 
worthy prelates ;  but  in  the  mass  of  the  clergy  the  passions, 
deprived  of  all  legitimate  gratification,  could  not  be  restrained 


1  Capit.  Pippini  arm.  755. 

In  these  efforts  Pepin  doubtless  re- 
ceived efficient  aid  from  his  cousin, 
St.  Chrodegaug,  Bishop  of  Metz,  whose 
lofty  rank  and  eminent  piety  gave 
him  wide  influence.  Chrodegang  vir- 
tually founded  the  order  of  Canons,  by 
the  Rule  for  their  government  which 
he  promulgated  in  762,  and  which 
became  generally  accepted.  In  this 
he  strictly  forbids  all  intercourse  with 
women,  and  punishes  transgressions 
with  stripes,  incarceration,  and  depo- 
sition. (Reg.  S.  Chrodeg.  cap.  xxix. 
lvi.  lxviii.  lxx.)  This  device  of  Chro- 
degang, by  converting  the  cathedral 


clergy  into  monks  bound  to  implicit 
obedience  towards  their  superiors, 
gave  no  little  increase  of  power  to  the 
bishops,  and  enabled  them  to  extend 
their  authority  and  influence.  It  is 
no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  institu- 
tion spread  rapidly  and  was  adopted 
in  most  of  the  dioceses. 

2  Cod.  Carolini  Epist.  lxiv.  (Patro- 
log.  T.  98  p.  319).  Yet  even  in  772 
we  find  that  a  council  in  Bavaria 
found  it  necessary  to  prohibit  the 
marriage  of  nuns. — Concil.  Dingol- 
ving.  can.  2.  (Hartzheim  Concil.  Ger- 
man. I.  129.) 


IMMORALITY   OF   THE   CLERGY. 


139 


in  a  race  so  little  accustomed  to  self-control,  and  unchastity 
remained  a  corroding  nicer  which  Charlemagne  and  Louis-le- 
"Debonnaire  vainly  endeavored  to  eradicate. 

It  would  be  an  unprofitable  task  to  recapitulate  the  con- 
stantly repeated  legislation  prohibiting  the  residence  of  women 
with  the  clergy  and  repressing  the  disorders  and  irregularities 
of  *the  monastic  establishments.  It  would  be  but  a  reitera- 
tion of  the  story  already  related  in  previous  centuries,  and  its 
only  importance  would  be  in  showing  by  the  frequency  of 
the  edicts  how  utterly  ineffectual  they  were.  When  Louis-le- 
Debonnaire,  in  826,  decreed  that  the  seduction  of  a  nun  was  to 
be  punished  by  the  death  of  both  the  partners  in  guilt ;  that  the 
property  of  both  was  to  be  confiscated  to  the  church,  and  that 
the  count  in  whose  district  the  crime  occurred,  if  he  neglected 
its  prosecution,  was  to  be  degraded,  deprived  of  his  office, 
undergo  public  penance,  and  pay  his  full  wehr-gild  to  the 
fisc,1  the  frightful  severity  of  the  enactment  is  the  measure  of 
the  impossibility  of  effecting  its  purpose,  and  of  the  ineffi- 
ciency of  the  reformation  so  elaborately  prepared  and  so  ener- 
getically promulgated  by  Louis  in  817.2 

But  perhaps  the  most  convincing  evidence  of  the  debased 
morality  of  the  clergy,  and  of  the  low  standard  which  even 
the  most  zealous  prelates  were  forced  to  adopt,  is  to  be  found 
in  a  curious  fabrication  by  the  authors  of  the  False  Decretals. 
The  collection  of  decretals  which  they  put  forth  in  the  names 
of  the  early  Popes  embodied  their  conception  of  a  perfect 
church  establishment,  as  adapted  to  the  necessities  and  aspi- 
rations of  the  ninth  century.  While  straining  every  point  to 
throw  off  all  subjection  to  the  temporal  power,  and  to  obtain 
for  the  hierarchy  full  and  absolute  control  over  all  ecclesias- 
tical matters  and  persons,  they  seem  to  have  felt  it  necessary 
to  relax  in  an  important  point  the  rigor  of  the  canons  respect- 
ing sacerdotal  purity.  Gregory  the  Great  had  proclaimed  in 
the  clearest  and  most  definite  manner  the  rule  that  a  single 
lapse  from  virtue  condemned  the  sinner  to  irrevocable  degra- 


1  Ludov.    Pii   Capit.    Ingelenheim. 
c.  5. 

2  Capit.  Aquisgran.  arm.  817.     Cf. 
Minei  Cod.  Donat.  Piar.  c.  13.— This 


Capitulary  regulating  monastic  life 
was  generally  adopted  as  a  supple- 
ment to  the  rule  of  Benedict.  (Leo. 
Ostiens.  Chron.  Cassinens.  Lib.  i.  c. 
16.) 


140 


THE   CARLOVINGIANS. 


dation,  and  rendered  him  forever  unfit  for  the  ministry  of  the 
altar.1  Yet  "Isidor  Mercator"  added  to  a  genuine  epistle  of 
Gregory  a  long  passage  elaborately  arguing  the  necessity  of 
forgiveness  for  those  who  expiate  "by  repentance  the  sin  of  im- 
purity, "  of  which,  among  many,  so  few  are  guiltless."2  The 
direct  testimony  is  notable,  but  not  less  so  is  the  indirect  evi- 
dence of  the  prevalent  laxity  which  could  induce  such  a  bid 
for  popularity  on  the  part  of  high  churchmen  like  those  con- 
cerned in  the  Isidorian  forgeries. 

Evidence,  also,  is  not  wanting,  that  the  denial  of  the  ap- 
propriate and  healthful  human  affections  led  to  the  results 
which  might  be  expected  of  fearful  and  unnatural  crimes. 
That  the  inmates  of  monasteries,  debarred  from  female 
society,  occasionally  abandoned  themselves  to  the  worst  ex- 
cesses, or,  breaking  through  all  restraint,  indulged  in  less 
reprehensible  but  more  open  scandals,  is  proclaimed  by  Char- 
lemagne, who  threatened  to  vindicate  the  outrage  upon  reli- 
gion with  the  severest  punishment.3  Nor  were  the  female 
convents  more  successfully  regulated,  for  the  council  of 
Aix-la-Chapelle,  in  836,  states  that  in  many  places  they  were 
rather  brothels  than  houses  of  God ;  and  it  shows  how  close 
a  supervision  over  the  spouses  of  Christ  was  thought  requi- 


1  See  ante,  p.  127.  Cf.  Pseudo-Hor- 
misdse  Epist.  Encyc.  (Migne's  Patrol. 
T.  lxiii.  p.  527.) 

2  Quid  enim  e.st  gravius  carnale  de- 
lictum admittere  sine  quo  in  multia 
pauci  inveniuntur,  an  Dei  filium  timen- 
do  negare  ?  in  quo  uno  ipsum  beatum 
Petrum  apostolorum  principem,  ad 
cujus  nunc  corpus  indigoi  sedemus, 
lapsum  esse  cognoscimus,sed  post  ne- 
gationem  poenitentia  secuta,  et  post 
poenitentiam  misericordia  data.  — 
Pseudo-Gregor.  Epist.  ad  Secundi- 
nura. 

It  is  not  easy  to  explain  the  manu- 
facture of  two  canons,  one  prohibiting 
bishops  from  celebrating  the  marriage 
of  nuns  under  seventy  years  of  age  ; 
the  other  forbidding  priests  from 
marrying,  under  a  penalty  of  ten 
years'  suspension,  with  a  threat  of 
perpetual  deprivation  for  contumacy. 
(Constit.Pseudo-Sylvestricap.x.  xix.) 
The  denial  of  marriage  was  too  gene- 


rally recognized  to  render  forgery  re- 
quisite to  strengthen  it,  and  I  can 
only  suggest,  from  the  peculiarity  of 
the  rules  enunciated,  that  these  can- 
ons may  have  been  genuine  ones,  bor- 
rowed from  some  forgotten  council  of 
the  sixth  or  seventh  century. 

3  Nam  pervenit  ad  aures  nostras 
opinio  perniciosissima,  in  fornicatiooe 
et  abominatione  et  immunditia  multos 
jam  in  monasteriis  esse  deprehensos 
•  .  .  ut  inde  maximam  spem  salutis 
omnibus  Christianis  oriri  crederent, 
id  est  de  vita  et  castitate  monachorum, 
in  tantum  ut  aliquis  ex  monachis  so- 
domitas  esse  auditum.  .  .  .  certe  am- 
plius  quid  tale  ad  aures  nostras  per- 
venerit,  non  solum  in  eos,  sed  etiam 
et  in  ceteros  qui  talia  consentiant, 
talem  ultionem  facimus  ut  nullus 
Christianas  qui  hoc  audierit  nulla- 
tenus  tale  quid  perpetrare  amplius 
prsesumpserit. —  Capit.  Carol.  Mag.  i. 
aim.  802  c.  17. 


INCREASING    CORRUPTION 


141 


site  when  it  proceeds  to  direct  that  nunneries  shall  be  so 
built  as  to  have  no  dark  corners  in  which  scandals  may  be 
perpetrated  out  of  view.1  The  effect  of  these  efforts  may  be 
estimated  from  a  remark  in  a  collection  of  laws  which  bears 
the  name  of  Erchenbald,  Chancellor  of  Charlemagne,  but 
which  is  rather  attributable  to  the  close  of  the  ninth  century, 
that  these  disorders  commonly  resulted  in  a  worse  crime- 
infanticide.2  As  regards  the  secular  clergy,  even  darker 
horrors  are  asserted  by  Theodulf,  Bishop  of  Orleans,  and 
other  prelates,  who  forbade  to  their  clergy  the  residence  of 
mother,  aunt,  and  sister,  in  consequence  of  the  crimes  so  fre- 
quently perpetrated  with  them  at  the  instigation  of  the  devil;3 
and  the  truth  of  this  hideous  fact  is  unfortunately  confirmed 
by  the  declarations  of  councils  held  at  various  periods.4 


1  De  monasteriis  puellarum  quae  in 
quibusdam  locis  lupanaria  potius  vi- 
dentur  esse  quam  monasteria.— Con- 
cil.  Aquisgran.  aim.  836,  de  vit.  et 
doc.  infer,  ordin.  can.  xii.,  xiv. 

2  Et  notandum  quod  in  illo  scelere 
aliud  humane  fiagitium  subterlatet. 
id  est  homicidium.  Quia  dum  illse 
meretrices,  sive  monasteriales  siye 
sgeculares,  male  conceptas  soboles  in 
peccatis  genuerunt,  ssepe  maxima  ex 
parte  occidunt.  —  Capitul.  add.  iv. 
cap.  clx.  (Baluze,  I.  1227). 

3  Quia,  instigante  diabolo,  etiam  in 
illis  scelus  frequenter  perpetratum  in- 
venitur,  aut  etiam  in  pedisequis 
earum.  Nee  igitur  matrem,  neque 
amitam,  neque  sororem  permittimus 
ultra  habitare  in  domo  una  cum  sa- 
cerdote.— Theodulf.  Aurelian.  Capit. 
Secund.  (Baluz.  et  Mansi  II.  99.) 

He  had  previously  (Epist.  c.  12) 
promulgated  the  prohibition,  assign- 
ing for"  it  the  more  decent  reason, 
in°iinitation  of  St.  Augustine,  of  the 
danger  arising  from  female  attend- 
ants. In  this  he  was  imitated,  about 
850,  by  Rodolf  of  Bourges  (Capit.  Ro- 
dulf.  Bituricens.  c.  16),  and  about 
871  by  Walter  of  Orleans  (Capit.  Wal- 
teri  Aurelian.  c.  3). 

In  889,  however,  Riculfus  of  Sois- 
sons  declares  the  lamentable  truth 
without  reserve:  "  Nos  vero  etiam  a 
matribus,  amitis,  sororibus  vel  pro- 


pinquis  cavendum  dieimus,  ne  forte 
illud  eveniat  quod  in  sancta  scrip- 
tura  legitur  de  Thamar  sorore  Absa- 
lon  .  .  .  de  Loth  etiam.  .  .  .  Quod  si 
aliquis  vestrum  matrem,  sororem  vel 
amitam  ad  convescendum  vocaverit, 
expleto  convivio  ad  domos  suas  vel 
ad  hospitia  a  domo  presbyteri  remota, 
cum  luce  diei  eas  faciat  remeare ;  pe- 
riculosum  quippe  est  ut  vobiscum 
habitent."— Riculfi  Suess.  Const,  c.  14. 

*  Thus  the  council  of  Mainz  in 
888—"  Quod  multum  dolendum  est, 
ssepe  audivimus  per  illam  conces- 
sionem  plurima  scelera  esse  com- 
missa,  ita  ut  quidam  sacerdotum, 
cum  propriis  sororibus  concumbentes, 
filios  ex  eis  generassent,  et  idcirco 
constituit  hsec  sancta  synodus,  ut 
nullus  presbyter  ullam  foeminam  se- 
cum  in  domo  propria  permittat,  qua- 
tenus  occasio  malse  suspicionis  vel 
facti  iniqui  penitus  auferatur"  (Con- 
cil.  Mogunt.  aim.  888,  c.  10).  In  the 
,  same  year  the  third  canon  of  the 
j  council  of  Metz  repeats  the  prohibi- 
!  tion ;  while  in  8i)5  the  council  of 
!  Nantes  declares  — "  Sed  neque  illas 
quas  canones  concedunt ;  quia  insti- 
gante diabolo,  etiam  in  illis  scelus  fre- 
quenter perpetratum  reperitur,  aut 
etiam  in  pedissequis  illarum,  scilicet 
matrem,  amitam,  sororem."— Concil. 
Namnetens.  aim.  895,  c.  3. 

It   is   true  that    some   authorities, 


142  THE   CARLOVINGIANS. 

If,  under  the  external  polish  of  Carlovingian  civilization, 
such  utter  demoralization  existed,  while  the  laws  were  en- 
forced by  the  stern  vigor  of  Charlemagne,  or  the  sensitive 
piety  of  Louis-le-Debonnaire,  it  is  easy  to  understand  what 
was  the  condition  of  society  when  the  sons  of  the  latter  in- 
volved the  whole  empire  in  a  ceaseless  tumult  of  civil  war. 
Not  only  was  the  watchful  care  of  the  first  two  emperors 
withdrawn,  but  the  state  was  turned  against  itself,  and  rapine 
and  desolation  became  almost  universal.  The  royal  power 
was  parcelled  out,  by  the  rising  feudal  system,  among  a 
crowd  of  nobles  whose  energies  were  solely  directed  to  con- 
solidating their  position,  and  was  chiefly  employed,  as  far  as 
it  affected  the  church,  in  granting  abbeys  and  other  eccle- 
siastical dignities  to  worthless  laymen,  whose  support  could 
only  be  secured  by  bribes  which  the  royal  fisc  could  no 
longer  supply.  Pagan  Danes  and  infidel  Saracens  were 
ravaging  the  fairest  provinces  of  the  empire,  and  their  blows 
fell  with  peculiar  weight  on  the  representatives  of  a  hated 
religion.  For  seventy  years  previous  to  the  treaty  of  Clair- 
sur-Epte  no  mass  resounded  in  the  walls  of  the  cathedral 
church  of  Coutances,  so  fierce  and  unremitting  had  been  the 
incursions  of  the  Northmen. 

Daring  this  period  of  anarchy  and  lawlessness,  the  church 
was  skilfully  emancipating  itself  from  subjection  to  the  tem- 
poral power,  and  was  laying  the  foundation  of  that  supremacy 
which  was  eventually  to  dominate  Christendom.  While  its 
aspirations  and  ambitions  were  thus  worldly,  and  its  ranks 
were  recruited  from  a  generation  trained  under  such  in- 
fluences, it  is  easy  to  believe  that  the  disorders  which  even 
Charlemagne  could  not  repress,  grew  more  and  more  flagrant. 
Even  the  greatly  augmented  power  of  the  Papacy  added  to 
the  increasing  license,  for  the  appellate  jurisdiction  claimed 
by  Eome  gave  practical  immunity  to  those  against  whom  the 
enforcement  of  the  canons  was  attempted.     About  the  year 

including  the  great  name  of  Pagi,  at-  i  consideration  is  shown  by  its  inser- 
tribute  to  this  council  of  Nantes  the  |  tion  in  the  Capitularies  of  Benedict 
date  of  6b0,  but  tins  is  unimportant  !  the  Levite  (Lib.  vn.  c.  376),  and  in 
as  regards  the  canon  in  question,  for  j  the  collection  of  Regino  of  Pruhm 
its  necessity  during  the  period  under  |  (Lib.  i.  c.  104). 


FORM  OF  LEGAL  PROCEDURE.        143 

876,  Charles-le-Chauve,  in  a  spirited  argument  against  the 
pretensions  of  the  Popes,  calls  attention  specially  to  the  exemp- 
tion thus  afforded  to  unchaste  priests,  who,  after  due  convic- 
tion by  their  bishops,  obtained  letters  from  Eome  overruling 
the  judgments ;  the  distance  and  dangers  of  the  journey  pre- 
cluding the  local  authorities  from  supporting  their  verdicts 
by  sending  commissioners  and  witnesses  to  carry  on  a  second 
trial  beyond  the  Alps.1 

This  shows  that  the  effort  to  enforce  purity  was  not  as 
yet  abandoned,  however  slender  may  have  been  the  success 
in  eradicating  an  evil  so  general  and  so  deeply  rooted.  The 
nominal  punishment  for  unchastity — loss  of  benefice  and  de- 
position— was  severe  enough  to  induce  the  guilty  to  hide 
their  excesses  with  care,  when  they  chanced  to  have  a 
bishop  who  was  zealous  in  the  performance  of  his  duties. 
Efforts  at  concealment,  moreover,  were  favored  by  the  forms 
of  judicial  procedure,  which  were  such  as  to  throw  every 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  procuring  a  conviction,  and  to  afford, 
in  most  cases,  practical  immunity  for  sin,  unless  com- 
mitted in  the  most  open  and  shameless  manner.  Hincmar, 
Archbishop  of  Eheims,  the  leading  ecclesiastic  of  his  clay, 
whose  reputation  for  learning  and  piety  would  have  rendered 
him  one  of  the  lights  of  the  church,  had  not  his  consistent 
opposition  to  the  innovations  of  the  papacy  caused  his  sanc- 
tity to  be  questioned  in  Eome,  has  left  us  elaborate  directions 
as  to  the  forms  of  prosecution  in  such  matters.  Notwith- 
standing his  earnest  exhortations  and  arguments  in  favor  of 
the  most  ascetic  purity,  he  discourages  investigation  by  means 
of  neighbors  and  parishioners,  or  irreverent  inquiries  on  the 
subject.  Only  such  testimony  was  admissible  as  the  laws 
allowed,  and  the  laws  were  very  strict  as  to  the  position  and 
character  of  witnesses.  In  addition  to  the  accusers  them- 
selves, seven  witnesses  were  necessary.  Of  these,  one  was 
required  to  substantiate  the  oaths  of  the  rest  by  under- 
going the  ordeal,  thus  exposing  himself  and  all  his  fellows 
to  the  heavy  penalties  visited  on  perjury,  upon  the  chance 
of  the  red-hot  iron  or  cold-water  trial,  administered,  per- 
haps, by   those   interested   in   shielding  the   guilty.     If,  as 


Hincmari  Epist.  xxxn.  c.  20. 


144 


THE   CARLO VINGIANS. 


we  can  readily  believe  was  generally  the  case,  these  formida- 
ble difficulties  could  not  be  overcome,  and  the  necessary 
number  of  witnesses  were  not  ready  to  sacrifice  themselves, 
then  the  accused  could  purge  himself  of  the  sins  imputed  to 
him  by  his  own  oath,  supported  by  one,  three,  or  six  com- 
purgators of  his  own  order;  and  Hincmar  himself  bears  tes- 
timony to  the  associations  which  were  formed  among  the 
clergy  to  swear  each  other  through  all  troubles.1 

Under  these  regulations,  Hincmar  orders  an  annual  in- 
vestigation to  be  made  throughout  his  province,  but  the 
results  would  appear  to  have  been  as  unsatisfactory  as  might 
have  been  expected.  In  874,  at  the  Synod  of  Eheims,  he 
complains  that  his  orders  have  been  neglected  and  despised, 
and  he  warns  his  clergy  that  proof  of  actual  criminality  will 
not  be  required,  but  that  undue  familiarity  with  women,  if 
persisted  in,  will  be  sufficient  for  condemnation  when  properly 
proved.2 

In  the  presence  of  facilities  for  escape  such  as  were  afforded 
by  the  practice  of  ecclesiastical  law  as  constructed  by  the  de- 
cretalists,  and  as  expounded  by  Hincmar  himself,  the  threats 
in  which  he  indulged  could  carry  but  little  terror.  We  need 
not  wonder,  therefore,  if  we  meet  with  but  slender  indications 
of  priestly  marriage  during  all  this  disorder,  for  there  was 
evidently  little  danger  of  punishment  for  the  unchaste  priest 
who  exercised  ordinary  discretion  in  his  amours,  while  the 
penalties  impending  over  those  who  should  openly  brave  the 
canonical  rules  were  heavy,  and  could  hardly  be  avoided  by 


1  Hincmari  Capit.  Presbyteris  data, 
cap.  xxr.-xxv.— "  Prpinde  de  concu- 
bitu  presbyterorum  cum  foeminis  per 
parochianos  vel  vicinos  cujuscumque 
presbyteri  iuquirere  non  laborabimus 
.  .  .  Non  igitur  de  lioc  inverecunde 
quaeremus." 

Hincmar  repeats  his  instructions, 
with  some  amplifications,  in  another 
document,  in  which  he  declares  them 
to  be  the  received  traditional  rules— 
"a  majoribus  nostris  accepimus"  (De 
Presbyt.criminos.  c.  xi.-xvm.).  That 
they  were  generally  practised  is  shown 
in  their  almost  literal  repetition  by 
the  council  of  Trosley  in  909— with 


the  exception  that  in  some  cases  four- 
teen or  twenty-one  witnesses  were  re- 
quired for  conviction.  (Concil.  Tros- 
lei.  c.  ix.) 

No  doubt  the  rule  was  already  in 
force,  enunciated  by  Gratian,  reject 
ing  the  testimony  of  the  woman  with 
whom  the  accused  had  been  guilty, 
although  her  confession  was  good  as 
against  herself—"  Quia  ergo  ista  de 
se  confitetur  super  alienum  crimen  ei 
credi  non  oportet;  sed  contra  earn 
sua  confessio  interpretanda  est."  — 
Caus.  xv.  q.  3,  Comment,  in  can.  5.) 

2  Capit.  Synod.  Remens.  ann.  874, 
c.  3. 


INDIFFERENCE    TO    THE    CANONS.  145 

any  one  who  should  dare  to  unite  himself  publicly  to  a  woman 
in  marriage.  Every  consideration  of  worldly  prudence  and 
passion  therefore  induced  the  priest  to  pursue  a  course  of 
illicit  licentiousness — and  yet,  as  the  century  wore  on,  traces 
of  entire  neglect  or  utter  contempt  of  the  canons  began  to 
manifest  themselves.  How  little  the  rule  really  was  re^ 
spected  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  when  anything  was  to 
be  gained  by  its  suppression,  is  shown  in  the  decision  made 
by  Nicholas  I.,  the  highest  of  high  churchmen,  when  en- 
couraging  the  Bulgarians  to  abandon  the  Greek  church, 
although  the  separation  between  Eome  and  Constantinople 
was  not,  as  yet,  formal  and  complete.  To  their  inquiry 
whether  married  priests  should  be  ejected,  he  replied  that 
though  such  ministers  were  objectionable,  yet  the  mercy  of 
God  was  to  be  imitated,  who  causes  his  sun  to  shine  on  good 
and  evil  alike,  and  as  Christ  did  not  dismiss  Judas,  so  they 
were  not  to  be  dismissed.  Besides,  laymen  were  not  to  judge 
priests  for  any  crime,  nor  to  make  any  investigation  into  their 
lives,  such  inquiries  being  reserved  for  bishops.1  As  no 
bishops  had  yet  been  appointed  by  Eome,  the  answer  was  a 
skilfully  tacit  permission  of  priestly  marriage,  while  avoiding 
an  open  avowal. 

It  need  awaken  no  surprise  if  those  who  united  recklessness 
and  power  should  openly  trample  on  the  canons  thus  feebly 
supported.  A  somewhat  prominent  personage  of  the  period 
was  Hubert,  brother  of  Teutberga,  Queen  of  Lotharingia,  and 
his  turbulent  conduct  was  a  favorite  theme  for  animadversion 
by  the  quiet  monastic  chroniclers.  That  he  was  an  abbot  is 
perhaps  no  proof  of  his  clerical  profession,  but  when  we  find 
his  wife  and  children  alluded  to  as  a  proof  of  his  abandoned 
character,  it  shows  that  he  was  bound  by  vows  or  ordained 
within  the  prohibited  grades,  and  that  he  publicly  violated 
the  rules  and  defied  their  enforcement.2 

The  earliest  absolute  evidence  that  has  reached  us,  how- 
ever, of  marriage  committed  by  a  member  of  the  great  body 


1  Mcliolai  I.  Respons.  ad  Consult.  I  procreans,  et  ad  suae  damuationis  cu- 
Bulgar.  c.  70.  mulum  nil  sibi  clericale  praeter  ton- 


,  -r,^  -x         j   -l  -TV.  surani  prael'erens. — Folcuin.  de  Gest. 

Ecitur  ad  haec  uxorms,  hberos    AKW   f.,„K^«a    , 

10 


Abbat.  Laubiens.  c.  12. 


146  THE   CARLOYINGIANS. 

of  the  plebeian  clergy,  subsequent  to  the  reforms  of  Boniface, 
occurs  about  the  year  893.  '  Angelric  priest  of  Yasnau  ap- 
pealed to  the  synod  of  Chalons,  stating  that  he  had  been  pub- 
licly joined  in  wedlock 'to' a  Woman  named  Grimma.  Such 
an  attempt  by  a  priest,  the  consent  of  the  woman  and  her 
relatives,  and  the  performance  of  the  ceremony  by  another 
priest  all  show  the  prevailing  laxity  and  ignorance,  yet  still 
there  were  found  some  faithful  and  pious  souls  to  object  to 
the  transaction,  and  Angelric  was  not  allowed  to  enjoy  un- 
disturbed the  fruits  of  his  sin.  Yet  even  the  synod  was  per- 
plexed, and  unable  to  decide  what  ought  to  be  done.  It 
therefore  only  temporarily  suspended  Angelric  from  com- 
munion, while  Mancio,  his  bishop,  applied  for  advice  to  Fulk 
of  Rheims,  metropolitan  of  the  province,  and  the  ignorance 
and  good  faith  of  all  parties  are  manifested  by  the  fact  that 
Angelric  himself  was  sent  to  Eulk  as  the  bearer  of  the  letter 
of  inquiry.1 

With  the  ninth  century  the  power,  the  cultivation,  and  the 
civilization  of  the  Carlovingians  may  be  considered  virtually 
to  disappear,  though  for  nearly  a  hundred  years  longer  a 
spectral  crown  encircled  the  brows  of  the  ill-starred  descend- 
ants of  Pepin.  Centralization,  reudered  impossible  in  tem- 
poral affairs  by  feudalism,  was  transferred  to  the  church, 
which,  thenceforth,  more  than  ever  independent  of  secular 
control,  became  wholly  responsible  for  its  own  shortcomings ; 
and  the  records  of  the  period  make  only  too  plainly  mani- 
fest how  utterly  the  power,  so  strenuously  contended  for, 
failed  to  overcome  the  ignorance  and  the  barbarism  of  the 
age. 


1  Mantion.  Episc.  Catalaun.  Epist.  ad  Fulc.  Remens.  (Migne's  Patrol.  T. 
131,  p.  23). 


'  N  I  V  KUs  I  r  y   (>F 

CALIFORNIA. 


THE  TENTH  CENTURY. 

^The  tenth  century,  well  characterized  by  Cave  as  the 
"  Speculum  Obscnrnm,"  is  perhaps  the  most  repulsive  in 
Christian  annals.  The  last  vestiges  of  Eoman  culture  have 
disappeared,  while  the  dawn  of  modern  civilization  is  as  yet 
far  off.  Society,  in  a  state  of  transition,  is  painfully  and 
vainly  seeking  some  form  of  security  and  stability.  The 
marauding  wars  of  petty  neighboring  chiefs  become  the 
normal  condition,  only  interrupted  when  two  or  three  unite 
to  carry  destruction  to  some  more  powerful  rival.  Though 
the  settlement  of  Normandy  relieved  Continental  Europe  to 
a  great  extent  from  the  terror  of  the  Dane,  yet  the  still  more 
dreaded  Hun  took  his  place  and  ravaged  the  nations  from  the 
Danube  to  the  Atlantic,  while  England  bore  the  undivided 
fury  of  the  Vikings,  and  the  Saracen  left  little  to  glean  upon 
the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean. 

When  brutal  ignorance  and  savage  ferocity  were  the  dis- 
tinguishing characteristics  of  the  age,  the  church  could  scarce 
expect  to  escape  from  the  general  debasement.  It  is  rather 
a  matter  of  grateful  surprise  that  religion  itself  was  not  over- 
whelmed in  the  general  chaos  which  engulfed  almost  all  the 
previously  existing  institutions.  When  the  crown  of  St. 
Peter  became  the  sport  of  barbarous  nobles,  or  of  a  still 
more  barbarous  populace,  we  may  grieve,  but  we  cannot  affect 
astonishment  at  the  unconcealed  dissoluteness  of  Sergius  III., 
whose  bastard,  twenty  years  later,  was  placed  in  the  pontifical 
chair  by  the  influence  of  that  embodiment  of  all  possible 
vices,  his  mother  Marozia.1     The  last  extreme  of  depravity 


1  Quo  mortuo,  ipsius  Marotiae  filium    constituunt.  —  Liutprand.    Antapod. 
Johaunem    nomine,    quem   ex    Sergio  .  Lib.  III.  c.  43. 


papa  meretrix  ipsa  genuerat,  papain 


148  THE    TENTH    CENTURY. 

would  seem  attained  by  John  XII.,  but  as  bis  deposition 
in  963  by  Otbo  the  Great  loosened  the  tongues  of  his  accu- 
sers, it  is  possible  that  he  was  no  worse  than  some  of  his 
predecessors.  As  for  him,  no  extreme  of  wickedness  was 
beyond  his  capacity ;  the  sacred  palace  of  the  Lateran  was 
turned  into  a  harem;  incest  gave  a  flavor  to  crime  when 
simple  profligacy  palled  upon  his  exhausted  senses,  and  the 
honest  citizens  of  Eome  complained  that  the  female  pilgrims 
who  formerly  crowded  the  holy  fanes  were  deterred  from 
coming  through  fear  of  his  promiscuous  and  unbridled  lust.1 
With  such  corruption  at  the  head  of  the  church,  it  is 
lamentably  ludicrous  to  see  the  popes  inculcating  lessons  of 
purity,  and  urging  the  maintenance  of  canons  which  they  set 
the  example  of  disregarding  so  utterly.  The  clergy  were 
now  beginning  to  arrogate  to  themselves  the  privilege  of 
matrimony,  and  marriage,  so  powerful  a  corrective  of  indis- 
criminate vice,  was  regarded  with  peculiar  detestation  by  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities,  and  awoke  a  far  more  energetic 
opposition  than  the  more  dangerous  and  corrupting  forms  of 
illicit  indulgence.  The  pastor  who  intrigued  in  secret  with 
his  penitents  and  parishioners  was  scattering  the  seeds  of  death 
in  place  of  the  bread  of  life,  and  was  abusing  his  holy  trust 
to  destroy  the  souls  confided  to  his  charge,  but  this  worked 
no  damage  to  the  temporal  interests  of  the  church  at  large. 
The  priest  who,  in  honest  ignorance  of  the  canons,  took  to 
himself  a  wife,  and  endeavored  faithfully  to  perform  the 
duties  of  his  humble  sphere,  could  scarcely  avoid  seeking 


1  In  the  council  which  condemned  araitam  conjugem,  Stephanise  alterius 
John,  the  accusers  stated — "  De  adul-  concubines  sororem.  Testis  omnium 
terio  dixerunt  quod  oculis  non  vide-  gentium  prseter  Romanarum  absentia 
rent,  sed  certissime  scirent,  viduam  mulierum,  quse  sanctorum  apostolo- 
Rainerii  et  Stephanam  patris  concu-  rum  limina orandi  gratia timent  visere, 
binam,  et  Annam  viduam  cum  nepte  cum  nonnullas  ante  dies  paucos  liunc 
sua  abusum  esse,  et  sanctum  pala-  audierint  conjugatas,  viduas,  virgines 
tium  lupanar  et  prostibulum  fecisse"  vi  oppressisse."  (Ibid.  c.  4.) 
(Liutprand.  Hist.  Otton.  c.  10).  So!  Equally  suggestive,  though  more 
the  Romans  in  their  address  to  Otho —  reticent,  is  the  character  given  of  him 
"Testis  est  Stephana  ejus  amita,  quse  by  another  contemporary — "Diligebat 
in  effusione  quod  ex  eo  conceperat  \  collectio  feminarum.  .  .  .  Tanta 
recens  hominem  exivit.  Quid  si  I  denique  libidine  sui  corporis  exarsit, 
cuncta  taceant,  Lateranensepalatium,  ;  quanta  nunc  possumus  enarrare." — 
sanctorum  quondam  hospitium,  nunc  '  Chron.  Benedict.  S.  Andrea?  Monach. 
prostibulum  meretricum,  non  silebit,    c.  35. 


TENDENCY  TO  HEREDITARY  BENEFICES.   149 

the  comfort  and  worldly  welfare  of  his  offspring,  and  this 
exposed  the  common  property  of  all  to  dilapidation  and  em- 
bezzlement. Disinterested  virtne  perhaps  would  not  be  long 
in  making  a  selection  between  the  comparative  evils,  but 
disinterested  virtue  was  not  a  distinguishing  characteristic  of 
the  age.  __ 

Yet  a  motive  of  even  greater  importance  than  this  rendered 
matrimony  more  objectionable  than  concubinage  or  licentious- 
ness. By  the  overruling  tendency  of  the  age,  all  possessions 
previously  held  by  laymen  on  precarious  tenure  were  rapidly 
becoming  hereditary.  As  the  royal  power  slipped  from  hands 
unable  to  retain  it,  offices,  dignities,  and  lands  became  the 
property  of  the  holders,  and  were  transmitted  from  father  to 
son.  Had  marriage  been  openly  permitted  to  ecclesiastics, 
their  functions  and  benefices  would  undoubtedly  have  fol- 
lowed the  example.  An  hereditary  caste  would  have  been 
established,  who  would  have  held  their  churches  and  lands  of 
right ;  independent  of  the  central  authority,  all  unity  would 
have  been  destroyed,  and  the  collective  power  of  the  church 
would  have  disappeared.  Having  nothing  to  gain  from 
obedience,  control  would  have  become  impossible,  and,  lay- 
men in  all  but  name,  the  ecclesiastics  would  have  had  no 
incentive  to  perform  their  functions,  except  what  little  in- 
fluence, under  such  circumstances,  might  have  been  retained 
over  the  people  by  maintaining  the  sacred  character  thus 
rendered  a  mockery. 

In  an  age  when  everything  was  unsettled,  yet  with  tenden- 
cies so  strongly  marked,  it  thus  became  a  matter  of  vital  im- 
portance to  the  church  to  prevent  anything  like  hereditary 
occupation  of  benefices  or  private  appropriation  of  property,' 
and  against  these  abuses  its  strongest  efforts  were  directed 
The  struggle  lasted  for  centuries,  and  it  is  indeed  most 
fortunate  for  our  civilization  that  sacerdotalism  triumphed, 
even  at  the  expense  of  what  at  the  moment  may  appear  of 
greater  importance.  I  cannot  here  pause  to  trace  the  progress 
of  the  struggle  in  its  long  and  various  vicissitudes.  It  will 
be  found  constantly  reappearing  in  the  course  of  the  folio  wing- 
pages,  and  for  the  present  it  will  suffice  to  group  together  a 


150  THE    TENTH    CENTURY. 

few  evidences  to  show  how  rapidly  the  hereditary  tendency 
developed  itself  in  the  period  now  under  consideration. 

The  narrowness  of  the  escape  from  ecclesiastical  feudaliza- 
tion  is  well  illustrated  by  an  incident  at  the  council  of  Tours, 
in  925,  where  two  priests,  father  and  son,  Eanald  and  Kaymond, 
appeared  as  complainants,  claiming  certain  tithes  detained  from 
them  by  another  priest.  They  gained  the  suit,  and  the  tithes 
were  confirmed  to  them  and  their  successors  forever.1  Even 
more  suggestive  is  the  complaint,  some  thirty  years  later,  of 
Eatherius,  Bishop  of  Verona,  who  objects  strenuously  to  the 
ordination  of  the  children  sprung  from  these  illegal  marriages, 
as  each  successive  father  made  his  son  a  priest,  thus  perpetu- 
ating the  scandal  indefinitely  throughout  the  church ;  and  as 
he  sorrowfully  admits  that  his  clergy  could  not  be  restrained 
from  marriage,  he  begs  them  at  least  to  bring  their  children 
up  as  laymen.2  This,  however,  by  his  own  showing,  would 
not  remove  the  material  evil,  for  in  another  treatise  he  states 
that  his  priests  and  deacons  divided  the  church  property 
between  them,  that  they  might  have  lands  and  vineyards 
wherewith  to  provide  marriage  portions  for  their  sons  and 
daughters.3  This  system  of  appropriation  also  forms  the  sub- 
ject of  lamentation  for  Atto,  Bishop  of  Vercelli,  whose  clergy 
insisted  on  publicly  keeping  concubines — as  he  stigmatizes 
those  who  evidently  were  wives — to  whom  they  left  by  will 
everything  that  they  could  gather  from  the  possessions  of  the 
church,  from  the  alms  of  the  pious,  or  from  any  other  source, 
to  the  ruin  of  ecclesiastical  property  and  to  the  deprivation 


1  Rainaldo  et  filio  suo  Raimoni  in 
synodali  conventu  talem  notitiam  ac- 
cipere,  quo  neque  suo  neque  successo- 
rum  suorum  tempore,  aliqua  contentio 
pro  ipsis  decimis  posset  oriri. — Con- 
cil.  Turon.  arm.  925.  (Mart,  et  Dur. 
IV.  73.) 

12  Presbyter  vero  aut  diaconus  uxo- 
rem  legitimarn  non  possit  habere.  Si 
filium  de  ipsa  fornicatione,  vel  quod 
pejus  est,  adulterio,  genitum  facit  pres- 
bytermn,  ille  alterum  de  se  similiter 
genitum  facit  presbyterum;  ille  iterum 


adulterium,  cujus  est  nisi  illius  qui 
illud  primitus  seminavit?  Quocirca 
monendi  et  obsecrandifratres,  ut  quia 
prohiberi,  proh  dolor !  a  mulieribus 
valetis  nullo  modo,  filios  de  vobis  gene- 
ratos  dimitteretis  saltern  esse  laicos, 
filias  laieis  jungeretis,  ut  vel  in  fine 
saltern  vestro  terminaretur,  et  nus- 
quam  in  fiuem  saeculi  duraret  adulte- 
rium vestrum.  —  Ratherii  de  nuptu 
cujusdam  illicito  c.  4. 

3  Ut  ditati  videlicet  .  .  .  habeant 
quoque  unde  filiis  uxores,  filiabus  ac- 
suum,  suum  alter  iterum;  pullulans  J  quirant  maritos,  vineas  et  campos. — 
illud  usque   in  finem    saeculi  taliter  |  Ratherii  decontemptu  canon.  P.  i.  c.  4. 


DILAPIDATION    OF    CHURCH    PROPERTY.       151 


of  the  poor.1  The  same  complaint  was  uttered  among  the 
Anglo-Saxons.  "  It  is  all  the  worse  when  they  have  it  all, 
for  they  do  not  dispose  of  it  as  they  ought,  but  decorate  their 
wives  with  what  they  should  the  altars,  and  turn  everything 
to  their  own  worldly  pomp.  .  .  Let  those  who  before  this  had 
the  evil  custom  of  decorating  their  women  as  they  should 
the  altars,  refrain  from  this  evil  custom,  and  decorate  their 
churches,  as  they  best  can;  then  would  they  command  for 
themselves  both  divine  counsel  and  worldly  worship.  A 
priest's  wife  is  nothing  but  a  snare  of  the  devil,  and  he  who 
is  ensnared  thereby  on  to  his  end,  he  will  be  seized  fast  by 
the  devil."2 

It  will  be  observed  that,  as  the  century  advanced,  sacerdotal 
marriage  became  more  and  more  comm6n.  Indeed,  in  966, 
Eatherius  not  only  intimates  that  his  clergy  all  were  married, 
but  declares  that  if  the  canon  prohibiting  repeated  marriages 
were  put  in  force,  only  boys  would  be  left  in  the  church, 
while  even  they  would  be  ejected  under  the  rule  which  ren- 
dered ineligible  the  offspring  of  illicit  unions.3  It  was  not 
that  the  ancient  canons  were  forgotten,4  nor  that  strenuous 
efforts  were  not  made  to  enforce  them,  but  that  the  temper  of 
the  times  created  a  spirit  of  personal  independence  so  com-J 
plete  that  the  power  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  seemed 
utterly  inadequate  to  control  the  growing  license.  About  the 
year  938,  Gerard,  Archbishop  of  Lorsch  and  Papal  Legate  for 


1  Prseterea  quod  dicere  pudet,  tacere 
autem  periculum,  quidam  in  tantum 
libidine  mancipantur,  ut  obscoenas 
meretriculas  sua  simul  in  doino  secum 
habitare,  una  cibum  sumere,  ac  pub- 
lice  degere  permittant.  Quaruni  ille- 
cebris  illecti,  sure  domui  cunctseque 
familise  ac  supellectili  eas  prseesse  dij  u- 
dicant,  suumque  post  obitum  scortum 
hseredem  constituunt,  et  quidquid  de 
facultatibus  ecclesise,  vel  eleemosynis, 
sese  undecunque  acquirere  possunt, 
hujusmodi  manibus  distraliendum  re- 
linquunt.  .  .  .  Et  unde  meretrices 
ornantur,  ecclesise  vastantur,  pauperes 
tribulantur. — Atton.  Vercell.  Epist.  ix. 

2  Institutes  of  Polity,  Civil  and  Ec- 
clesiastical, c.  19,  23  (Thorpe,  Ancient 
Laws,  &c.  of  England,  II.  329,  337). 


3  Rursum  si  lectum  impleretur  "  Si 
quis  presbyter  uxorem  duxerit,  depo- 
natur;"  magis  autem  pelli  debet  si 
adulterium  perpetraverit ;  quis  ex  vo- 
bis  indepositus  esset?  .  .  .  Si  multinu- 
bos  a  clericatu  repellerern,  quern  nisi 
puerulos  in  ecclesia  relinquerem  ?  Si 
manzeres  abjicerem,  quern  ex  eisdem 
puerulis  stare  in  choro  permitterem  ? 
— Ratherii  Itinerar.  c.  5. 

4  Grunzo  the  Grammarian,  in  his 
learned  treatise,  makes  use  of  the 
recognized  celibacy  of  the  clergy  as  a 
comparison.  "Non  enim  una  eadem- 
que  res  bona,  licet  seque  omnibus  con- 
ceditur.  Siquidem  nuptise,  laicis  con- 
cessae,  sacris  ordinibus  denegantur." 
— Grunzonis  Epist.  ad  Augienses. 


152  THE    TENTH    CENTURY. 

Southern  Germany,  laid  before  Leo  VII.  a  series  of  questions 
relating  to  various  points  in  which  the  ancient  canons  were 
set  at  naught  throughout  the  region  under  his  supervision. 
Leo  answered  by  a  decretal  addressed  to  all  the  princes  and 
potentates  of  Europe,  in  which  he  laments  over  Gerard's 
statement  of  the  public  marriages  of  priests,  and  replies  to  his 
inquiry  as  to  the  capacity  of  their  children  for  ecclesiastical 
promotion.  The  first  he  pronounces  forbidden  by  the  canons, 
and  those  guilty  of  it  he  orders  to  be  deprived  of  their  bene- 
fices. As  «for  the  offspring  of  such  marriages,  however,  he 
says  that  they  are  not  involved  in  the  sins  of  their  parents.1 

The  unusual  liberality  of  this  latter  declaration,  however, 
was  not  a  precedent.  The  church  always  endeavored  to  pre- 
vent the  ordination  \)f  the  children  of  ecclesiastics,  and  Leo, 
in  permitting  it,  was  only  yielding  to  a  pressure  which  he 
could  not  withstand.  It  was  a  most  dangerous  concession,  for 
it  led  directly  to  the  establishment  of  the  hereditary  principle. 
An  effort  was  soon  after  made,  by  an  appeal  to  the  temporal 
power,  to  recover  the  ground  lost,  and  about  the  year  940 
Otho  the  Great  was  induced  to  issue  an  edict  prohibiting  the 
sons  of  deacons,  priests,  and  bishops  from  occupying  the  posi- 
tions of  notary,  j  udge,  or  count2 — the  bare  necessity  of  which 
shows  how  numerous  and  powerful  the  class  had  already 
become. 

Although,  as  early  as  925,  the  council  of  Spalatro  seemed  to 
find  nothing  to  condemn  in  a  single  marriage,  but  threatened 
excommunication  against  those  who  so  far  forgot  themselves 
as  to  contract  a  second,3  and  though  by  the  middle  of  the 


1  Deliinc  intulit  lamentabile  et  ni-  I      2  Diaconorum  episcoporum  presby- 

mis  lugenduoa,  ut  Domini  sacerdotes  j  terorurn  filios,  notarios  sculdasios  co- 

publice  ducant  uxores,  et  si  filii  eorum    mites    judices   fieri,    omnibus   modis 

valeant  promoveri?    Quod  scelus  .  .  .    prohibemus. — Constit.Otton.ann.  940, 

juxta  sacros  canones  modis  omnibus  |  c.  12. 

prohibemus  .  .  .  Et  qui  in  tali  scelere  I      ,  n      ,     .  ,   ,  ..        . 

£ .   .  ,.         ,  ^  .  v  i3  Quod  si  sacerdotes  incontinenter 

tuennt  reperti  nostra  apostohca  auc-  r  ..       .. 

....        f  .        .    r  ,        ,  propter  ipsam  continentiam  primam 

toritate   ab    omni    pnventur    honore.    F    ^         *.,  .  ..        * .. 

„.,..  .  *  ,  quam  sortitus  est,  separati  a  consortio 

Filn  vero  eorum  immunes  ab  eorum  r*  .,       ,  .         '     *       .  ,. 

cellse,  teneat  uxorem  ;  si  vere  aliam 

duxerit,    excommunicetur.  —  Concil. 


peccato  sunt,  dicente  propheta:  filius 
non  portabit  iniquitatem  patris,  et  in 
sacro  baptismate  omnia  dimittuntur 
peccata. — Leon.  PP.  VII.  Epist.  15. 


Spalatens.  ami.  925,  c.  15. 

The  passage  is  evidently  corrupt,  but 
its  intention  is  manifest.    The  reading 


PREVALENCE  OF  SACERDOTAL  MARRIAGE.   153 

century  the  practice  had  become  generally  established,  yet 
some  rigid  prelates  continued  to  keep  alive  the  memory  of 
the  ancient  canons  by  fruitless  protests  and  ineffectual  efforts 
at  reform.  In  948,  the  synod  of  Engelheim,  under  the  presi- 
dency of  Marino,  Bishop  of  Ostia  and  Papal  Yicar,  condemned 
such  marriages  as  incestuous  and  unlawful.1  In  952,  at  the 
council  of  Augsburg,  the  assembled  German  and  Italian  pre- 
lates made  a  further  and  more  desperate  effort.  Deposition 
was  pronounced  against  the  subcleacon,  deacon,  priest,  or 
bishop  who  should  take  to  himself  a  wife ;  separation  of  those 
already  married  was  ordered,  and  even  the  lower  grades  of 
the  clergy,  who  had  not  previously  been  subjected  to  any 
such  rule,  were  commanded  to  observe  the  strictest  conti- 
nence. An  attempt  was  also  made  to  prevent  concubinage 
by  visiting  suspected  women  with  stripes  and  shaving ;  but 
there  evidently  was  some  difficulty  anticipated  in  enforcing 
this,  for  the  royal  power  is  invoked  to  prevent  secular  inter- 
ference with  the  sentence.2 

This  stringent  legislation  of  course  proved  utterly  nugatory, 
but,  futile  as  it  was,  it  yet  awakened  considerable  opposition. 
St.  Ulric,  in  whose  episcopal  town  of  Augsburg  the  council 
was  held,  addressed  a  long  epistle  to  the  Pope,  remonstrating 
against  his  efforts  to  enforce  the  rule  of  celibacy,  and  arguing 
the  question,  temperately  but  forcibly,  on  the  grounds  both  of 
scriptural  authority  and  of  expediency.  He  pointed  out  how 
much  more  obnoxious  to  Divine  wrath  were  the  promiscuous 
and  nameless  crimes  indulged  in  by  those  who  were  foremost 
in  advocating  the  reform,  than  the  chaste  and  single  marriages 
of  the  clergy;  and  the  violent  distortion  of  the  sacred  texts 
by  those  Avho  sought  authority  to  justify  the  canon  he  not 
unhappily  characterized  as  straining  the  breast  of  Scripture 
until  it  yielded  blood  in  place  of  milk.3 


suggested  by  Batthyani  may  be  rea- 
sonably accepted.  "  Quod  si  sacerdotes 
iucontinentes  propter  ipsatu  continen- 
tiaui  quam  quis  priruam.  sortitus  est, 


est  de  incestis  et  illicitis  presbytero- 
rum  conjugiis. — Ricberi  Hist.  Lib.  if. 
c.  81.  The  canons  of  the  council, 
however,  as  they  have  reached  us,  are 


separati  a  consortiocellse,teneant  uxo-  ,  silent  on  the  subject. 

rem,  tolerantur ;  si  yero  aliam  duxe-  j      ,  ConoiL  A  UuL  ann<  952    c>  j 

nnt,  excommunicentur.      (Batthyani,     .    ,, 

Legg.  Eccles.  Hungar.  I.  333-4. ) 


Reliquis  autem  diebm  decretum 


1  In   nimirum  non  recte  intellexe- 


154 


THE    TENTH    CENTURY. 


Despite  the  inefficiency  of  these  attempts,  the  clergy  were 
not  allowed  to  enjoy  their  unlawful  domestic  ties  in  peace,  and, 
where  the  votaries  of  asceticism  were  bold  and  determined, 
the  contest  was  sometimes  severe.  The  nature  of  the  struggle 
is  well  illustrated  by  the  troubles  which  arose  between  Eathe- 
rius  of  Yerona  and  the  ecclesiastics  of  his  diocese.  In  April, 
967,  John  XIII.  held  a  council  at  Eavenna  which  commanded 
those  who  were  in  holy  orders  to  give  up  at  once  either  their 
wives  or  their  ministry,  and  Otho  the  Great  was  induced  to 
issue  a  precept  confirming  this  peremptory  decree.  Eatherius 
had  long  been  vainly  wishing  for  some  authority  on  the  sub- 
ject more  potent  than  the  ancient  and  now  obsolete  canons;1 
and  on  his  return  from  Eavenna  he  summoned  a  synod  for 
the  purpose  of  promulgating  the  new  regulations.  His  clergy 
got  wind  of  his  intention;  very  few  of, them  obeyed  the  sum- 
mons, and  those  who  came  boldly  declared  that  they  would 
neither  be  separated  from  their  wives  nor  abandon  their  func- 
tions ;  in  fact,  they  did  not  scruple  to  maintain  that  marriage 
was  not  only  permissible,  but*  even  necessary  to  protect  the 


runt   Seripturam,  cujus   mammillam  I 
qui  durius  presserint  sanguinem  pro 
lacte  biberunt.  .  .  Quid  divinse  male- 
diction! obligatius,  quam  cum  aliqui  j 
eorum  vel  episcopi  videlicet  et  archi- 
diaconi  itaprsecipites  Bint  in  libidinem,  j 
at   neque   adulteria   neque    incestus,  i 
neque  masculorum  proh  pudor !  tur- 
pissimos  sciant  abhorrere  concubitus, 
quod  casta  clericorum  conjugia  sibi 
dicunt  foetere,  et  ab  eis  non  verse  jus-  , 
titise  compassione,  sed  falsse  justitiae 
dedignatione  clericos  .  .  .   ut  servos 
jubeant  vel  cogant   abstinere. — Cod. 
Bamberg.  Lib.  n.  Epist.  10. 

St.  Ulric  is  noteworthy  as  the  first 
subject  of  papal  canonization,  having 
been  enrolled  in  the  calendar  by  the 
council  of  Rome  in  993.  That  priestly 
marriage  should  be  advocated  by  so 
pious  and  venerable  a  father  was  of 
course  not  agreeable  to  the  sacerdotal 
party,  and  his  evidence  against  celi- 
bacy has  not  infrequently  been  ruled 
out  of  court  by  discrediting  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  epistle.  The  compiler 
of  the  collection  containing  it,  made 
in  1125,  prefixed  the  name.of  Nicholas 


as  that  of  the  pope  to  whom  it  was 
addressed,  and  as  St.  Ulric  was  about 
equidistant  between  Nicholas  I.  in  the 
ninth,  and  Nicholas  II.  in  the  eleventh 
century,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the 
epistle  was  addressed  to  the  latter,  on 
the  occasion  of  his  reforms  in  1059, 
the  use  of  St.  Ulric's  name  being  as- 
sumed as  a  mistake  of  the  compiler. 
That  this  is  not  so  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  already  in  1079  it  was  known 
as  St.  Ulric's,  being  condemned  as 
such  in  that  year  by  Gregory  VII. — 
"scriptum  quod  dicitur  sancti  Oudal- 
rici  ad  papam  Nicholaum,  de  nuptiis 
presbiterorum"  (Bernald.  Constant. 
Chron.  aim.  1079).  The  authenticity 
of  the  document,  I  believe,  is  generally 
admitted  by  unprejudiced  critics. 

1  The  previous  year  (966)  Ratherius 
had  issued  an  elaborate  series  of  pre- 
cepts to  his  clergy,  in  which  he  had 
only  ventured  to  prohibit  them  from 
conjugal  intercourse  during  the  pe- 
riods forbidden  likewise  to  laymen, 
in  Advent,  Christmas,  Lent,  &c.  (Ra- 
therii  Synodica  c.  15.) 


RESISTANCE    OF    THE    CLERGY. 


155 


church  from  the  most  hideous  vices.1  Eatherius  had  passed 
through  too  many  vicissitudes  in  his  long  and  agitated  career 
to  shrink  from  the  collision,  now  that  he  was  backed  by  both 
the  papal  and  imperial  authority.  He  promptly  threw  the 
recalcitrant  pastors  into  prison,  declaring  that  they  should  lie 
there  until  they  paid  a  heavy  fine  for  the  benefit  of  the  cathe- 
dral of  the  Virgin,  and  he  further  commanded  the  presence  of 
those  who  had  failed  to  appear.  The  clergy  of  the  diocese, 
finding  that  the  resistance  of  inertia  was  unavailing,  took 
more  decided  steps,  and  appealed  for  protection  to  the  tem| 
poral  power,  in  the  person  of  Nanno,  Count  of  Yerona.  He 
promptly  espoused  their  cause,  and  his  missus  Gilbert  forbade 
their  obedience  to  the  summons  of  their,  bishop  for  a  year. 
Eatherius  remonstrated  vehemently  against  the  assumption  of 
Nanno  that  the  priests  were  his  vassals,  subject  to  his  juris- 
diction, and  entitled  to  his  protection.  He  therefore  invoked 
the  power  of  Otho,  in  a  letter  to  Ambrose,  the  Imperial  Chan- 
cellor.2 The  clergy  were  too  powerful;  the  imperial  court 
decided  against  the  bishop,  and  before  the  end  of  the  year 
Eatherius  was  forced  to  withdraw  from  the  unequal  contest 
and  to  take  refuge  in  the  peaceful  abbey  of  Lobbes,  whence 
he  had  been  withdrawn  a  quarter  of  a  century  before  to  fill 
the  see  of  Verona.  Three  times  had  he  thus  been  driven  from 
that  city,  and  an  intermediate  episcopate  of  Liege,  with  which 
one  of  his  periods  of  exile  was  gratified,  had  been  terminated 
in  the  same  abrupt  manner  by  the  unruly  clergy,  unable 
to  endure  the  severity  of  his  virtue.3  How  great  was  the 
revolution  to  which  he  sacrificed  his  life  is  shown  by  his 
declaration  that  ecclesiastics  differed  from  laymen  only  in 


1  Patent  adeo  fieri  non  modo  licere 
sed  etiam  oportere,  ut  nemo  hoc  facere 
devitans  videatur  eis  pessimo  illo  .  .  . 
scelere  posse  carere.  .  .  Quarn  perdita 
tonsuratorurn  universitas  tota,  si  nemo 
in  eis  qui  non  aut  adulter  aut  sit 
arsenoquita.  Adulter  enim  nobis  est 
qui  contra  canones  uxorius  est. — Ra- 
therii  Discordia,  c.  1. 

Some,  indeed,  professed  that  their 
poverty  did  not  permit  them  to  live 
without  the  assistance  of  their  wives, 
and   asserted   their   readiness    for    a 


separation  if  a  regular  stipend  could 
be  assured  to  them.    (Ibid.  c.  6.) 

2  Ratherii  Epist.  xr.,  xn. — His  letter 
to  the  Empress  Adelaide,  announcing 
his  willingness  to  retire  from  the  con- 
test, and  to  seek  the  congenial  shades 
of  a  monastery,  is  most  uncourtly. 
(Epist.  xin.) 

3  Ruotgeri  Vit.  S.  Brunonis  c.  38.— 
Ratherius  consoled  himself  epigram  - 
matically  by  condensing  his  misfor- 
tunes in  the  Leonine  verse — "  Veroiice 
prsesul,  sed  ter  Ratherius  exsul." 


156  THE    TENTH    CENTURY. 

shaving  and  the  tonsure,  in  some  slight  fashioning  of  their 
garments,  and  in  the  careless  performance  of  the  church 
ritual.1 

That  the  Veronese  clergy  were  not  alone  in  obtaining 
from  the  secular  potentates  protection  against  these  efforts 
on  the  part  of  reforming  bishops,  is  evident  from  the  lamenta- 
tions of  Atto  of  Vercelli.  That  estimable  prelate  deplores 
the  blindness  of  those  who,  when  paternally  warned  to  mend 
their  evil  ways,  refuse  submission,  and  seek  protection  from 
the  nobles.  If  we  may  believe  him,  however,  they  gained 
but  little  by  this  course,  for  their  criminal  lives  placed  them 
at  the  mercy  of  the  secular  officials,  whose  threats  to  seize 
their  wives  and  children  could  only  be  averted  by  continual 
presents.  Thus  they  not  only  plundered  the  property  of 
their  churches,  but  forfeited  the  respect  and  esteem  of  their 
flocks ;  all  reverence  for  them  was  thereby  destroyed,  and, 
living  in  perpetual  dread  of  the  punishment  due  to  their 
excesses,  in  place  of  commanding  obedience,  they  were  ex- 
posed to  constant  oppression  and  petty  tyranny.2 

When  prelates  so  sincere  and  so  earnest  as  Eatherius  and 
Atto  were  able  to  accomplish  so  little,  it  is  easy  to  under- 
stand what  must  have  been  the  condition  of  the  dioceses 
intrusted  to  the  great  mass  of  bishops,  who  were  rather 
feudal  nobles  than  Christian  prelates.  St.  Wolfgang  of  Ea- 
tisbon  might  issue  thousands  of  exhortations  to  his  clergy, 
inculcating  chastity  as  the  one  indispensable  virtue,  and 
might  laboriously  reform  his  monasteries  in  which  monks  and 
nuns  led  a  life  almost  openly  secular;3  but  he  was  well  nigh 


'  De  Contempt.  Canon.  P.  n.  c.  2.    continenter   vixit  ;  alteram  qui   post 
This   was  written   in   964.     The  pro-  I  ordinationem  uxorem  duxit ;   et   iste 
gress   of   sacerdotal  marriage   during  j  ilium,  ille  istum  carpebat." — De  Con- 
the  preceding  quarter  of  a  century  is  '  tempt.  Canon.  P.  i.  c.  11. 
shown  by  a  similar  comparison  drawn  j      2  y        n   E  g<     fa 

by  Rathenus   some  thirty  years   be-    Qther  Nq>  10*  consratu. 

fore,  in  which  matrimony  is  included  hfmseif  \>n   the  reform  of  some 


among    the  few  points   of  difference 


of  his  clergy,  and  threatens  the  contu- 


along  with  shaving  and  the  tonsure.  .  B..\    ,  -,    .. 

fT.    fl,        .  ..?  10  N  macious  with  degradation. 

(Praeloquiorum  Lib.  v.  c.  18.) 


The  existing  confusion  is  well  ex- 
emplified by  another  remark.  "Exper- 
tus  sum  talem  qui  ante  ordinationem 
adulterium  perpetravit,  postea  quasi 


3  Othloni  Vit.  S.  Wolfkangi,  c.  15, 
16,  17,  23.  Prse  omnibus  ut  casti- 
tatem  sequerentur  milies  inculcavit. 


CONTRASTS.  157 

powerless  for  good  compared  with  the  potentiality  of  evil 
conveyed  by  the  example  of  such  a  bishop  as  Segenfrid  of 
Le  Mans,  who,  during  an  episcopate  which  lasted  for  thirty- 
three  years,  took  to  himself  a  wife  named  Hildeberga,  and 
who  stripped  the  church  for  the  benefit  of  his  son  Alberic, 
the- sole  survivor  of  a  numerous  progeny  by  her  whom  he 
caused  to  be  reverenced  as  his  Episcopissa.1  Guarino  of 
Modena  might  hope  to  stem  the  tide  of  license  by  refusing 
preferment  to  all  who  would  not  agree  to  hold  their  benefices 
on  a  sort  of  feudal  tenure  of  chastity;2  but  he  had  much  less 
influence  on  his  age  than  such  a  man  as  Alberic  of  Marsico, 
whose  story  is  related  as  a  warning  by  Peter  Damiani.  He 
was  married  (for,  in  the  language  of  Damiani,  "  obscsena 
meretricula"  may  safely  be  translated  a  wife),  and  had  a  son 
to  whom  he  transferred  his  bishopric,  as  though  it  had  been 
an  hereditary  fief.  Growing  tired  of  private  life,  however, 
he  aspired  to  the  abbacy  of  Monte  Casino.  That  humble 
foundation  of  St.  Benedict  had  become  a  formidable  military 
power,  of  which  its  neighbors  the  Capuans  stood  in  constant 
dread.  Alberic  leagued  with  them,  and  a  plot  was  laid  by 
which  the  reigning  abbot's  eyes  were  to  be  plucked  out,  and 
Alberic  placed  in  possession,  for  which  service  he  agreed  to 
pay  a  heavy  sum,  one-half  in  advance,  and  the  rest  when  the 
abbot's  eyes  should   be  delivered   to  him.      The  deed  was 


1  "Ad  cu  mnlum  damnationis  suae,  I  of  the  period. — "  Tyrannos  potius  ap- 

accepit  mulierem,  nomine  Hildebur-  ''  pellabo,  qui  bellicis  occupati  negotiis, 

gam,  in  senectiite,quse,  ingressoillo  ad    multo  stipati  latus  milite,  solidarios 

se,  concepit  et  peperit  Alios  et  filias,    pr^tio    conducunt,    ut    nullos    sseculi 

&c."    The  chronicler  makes  the  end  of    reges   aut  principes  noverim  adeo  in- 

this  aged  sinner  an  example  of  poeti-    structos  bellorum    legibus,  totam  ar- 

cal  justice  such  as  may  frequently  be  :  morum  disciplinam  in  procinctu  mili- 

found  in  the  monkish  annals  of  those    tise  servare,  digerere  turmas,  ordines 

times — "Qui  dum    esset   fiebotoma-    componere,    ad    turbandam    ecclesia? 

tus,    nocte    insecuta    dormivit    cum  !  pacem,  et    Christianorum,  licet  hos- 

Episcopissa  ;  qua  de  re  vulnus  ccepit    tium,    sanguinem    effundendum."  — 

intumescere,  et  dolor  usque  ad  inte-    Fulbert.  Carnot.  Epist.  112. 

riora  cordis  devenire."     Finding  his  :      „  m,  .      .        ,  .-,   ,  _„  i      , 

...  i  X,  2  This  singular  oath  has  been  pub- 

end  approaching,  he  assumed  the  mo-    ,.  ,     ,  t      ,,°     ,     .  ,  *„+■      T*«i    tk™ 
..M    ,  ...       %■.     ,    .,  ,,        lished  by  Muraton  (Antiq.  Ital.  Diss, 

nastic  habit  and  took  the  vows,  after  .       /^  „     »„j.1«,    „!Lmui*~.   ^„„ 

,.  .    .      .  j.   ,   ,  •     j       a   x     xx.). — "Ego    Andrea    presbiter   pro 

which  he  immediately  expired.— Act.  ,      .'    nn  f*  ~  n    .         *ihna         *tia 


Pontif.  Cenoman.  c.  29  (Dom  Bouquet, 


mitto  coram  Deo  et  omnibus  Sanctis, 
et  tibi  Guarino  episcopo,  quod  carna- 


'u-iilJ'   #  nv.^™.   u-  w*    «„  „    lem  commistionem  non  faciam;  et  si 


Fulbert  of  Chartres  has  lei't    us  a 


fecero,  et  onoris  mei  et   beneficio  ec- 
vely  sketch  of  the  military  bishops    c]esi£e'perdam.» 


158 


THE    TENTH    CENTURY. 


accomplished,  but  while  the  envoys  were  bearing  to  Alberic 
the  bloody  tokens  of  success,  they  were  met  by  tidings  of  his 
death,  and  on  comparing  notes  they  found  that  he  had  ex- 
pired at  the  very  moment  of  the  perpetration  of  the  atrocious 
crime.1 

So  St.  Abbo  of  Fleury  might  exhaust  his  eloquence  in 
inculcating  the  beauty  and  holiness  of  immaculate  purity, 
and  might  pile  authority  on  authority  to  demonstrate  the 
punishments  which,  in  this  world  and  the  next,  attended  on 
those  who  disobeyed  the  rule  ;2  yet  when  he  endeavored,  in 
the  monastery  of  La  Eeole,  a  dependency  on  his  OAvn  great 
abbey  of  Fleury,  to  put  his  precepts  into  practice,  the  recal- 
citrant monks  flew  to  arms  and  murdered  him  in  the  most 
brutal  manner,  not  even  sparing  the  faithful  Adalard,  who 
was  reverently  supporting  the  head  of  his  beloved  and  dying 
master.3  How  little  disposed  were  the  ecclesiastical  authori- 
ties in  general  to  sustain  the  efforts  of  puritans  like  St.  Abbo 
was  clearly  shown  in  the  council  of  St.  Denis,  convened  in 
995  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  the  neglected  discipline  of 
the  church,  which,  passing  over  the  object  of  its  assembling, 
devoted  its  whole  attention  to  the  more  practically  interest- 
ing question  of  tithes.4 

All  prelates,  however,   were  not  either  feudal  chiefs  or 


1  S.  Petri  Damiani  Epist.  Lib.  iv. 
Epist.  8. — Leo  Marsicanus  (Chron. 
Cassinens.  Lib.  n.  c.  16)  asserts  that 
in  his  youth  he  himself  had  seen  and 
conversed  with  a  priest  who  had  been 
one  of  the  eye-bearers. 

2  Abbon.  Floriac.  Epist.  14. 

3  Although  Aimoin,  who  was  an 
eye-witness,  does  not  specially  men- 
tion the  cause  that  excited  the  monks 
to  ungovernable  fury,  yet  a  casual 
allusion  shows  that  women  were  re- 
sponsible for  it. — "Cseternm,  tanta 
cladis  compilatores  certissime  agnos- 
centes  beatum  obiisse  Abbonem,  cer- 
tatim  cuncti  in  fugam  vertuntur,  ita 
ut,  terris  reddito  die,  ne  mulieres 
quidam  inuniversis  forensibus  ipsius 
villa?  invenirentur  domibus" — (Ab- 
bon. Floriac.  Vit.  c.  xx.) — and  the 
day  after  his  death  "una  ex  his  mu- 


lieribus  qua?  clamore  suo  seditionem 
concitaverant"  became  suddenly  mad, 
and  was  struck  with  incurable  leprosy 
—  (Aimoin.  Mirac.  S.  Abbonis,  c.  2). 
Damiani  might  well  exclaim,  when 
bewailing  the  unfortunate  fate  of  ab- 
bots, on  whom  was  thrown  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  morals  of  their  commu- 
nities— 

Phinees  si  imitatur, 

Fugit  vel  expellitur ; 

Si  Eli,  tunc  irridetur 

Atque  parvipenditur ; 

Odiosus  est,  si  ferveus, 

Et  vilis,  si  tepidus. — Carm.  ccxxi. 

4  Qui,  cum  de  fidei  puritate,  de 
corrigendis  tarn  suis  quam  subditorum 
pravis  moribus  sermocinari  debuis- 
sent,  juxta  vulgare  proverbium  cunc- 
tum  suum  sermonem  ad  decimas  ver- 
terunt  ecclesiarum. — Aimoin.  Vit.  S. 
Abbonis,  c.  9. 


RELAXATION    OF    THE   CANONS.  159 


■ 


ascetic  puritans.  Some,  who  were  pious  and  virtuous,  had  so 
far  become  infected  with  the  prevailing  laxity  that  they 
regarded  the  stricter  canons  as  obsolete,  and  offered  no  oppo- 
sition to  the  domestic  aspirations  of  their  clergy.  Thus 
Constantine,  Abbot  of  the  great  house  of  St.  Symphorian  of 
Metz,  in  his  life  of  Aclalbero  II.,  who  was  Bishop  of  Metz 
from  98i  to  1005,  actually  praises  him  for  his  liberality  in 
not  refusing  ordination  to  the  sons  of  priests,  and  attributes 
discreditable  motives  to  those  bishops  who  insisted  on  the 
observance  of  the  canons  prohibiting  all  such  promotions.1 
As  Constantine  was  a  monk  and  a  disciple  of  Adalbero,  the 
tone  which  he  adopts  shows  that  the  higher  prelates  and  the 
regular  clergy  were  beginning  to  recognize  sacerdotal  mar- 
riage as  a  necessity  of  the  age.  This  view  is  strengthened  by 
the  fact  that  no  effort  to  reform  an  abuse  so  universal  was 
made  at  the  great  synod  of  Dortmund,  held  in  1005  for  the 
special  purpose  of  restoring  the  discipline  of  the  church.2 

How  completely,  indeed,  marriage  came  to  be  regarded  as 
a  matter  of  course  is  manifest  when  in  1019  an  assembly  of 
Grerman  bishops,  with  the  Emperor  St.  Henry  at  their  head, 
gravely  deliberated  over  the  knotty  question  whether,  when 
a  noble  permitted  his  serf  to  enter  into  holy  orders,  and  the 
serf,  presuming  upon  his  new-born  dignities  and  the  wealth 
of  his  benefices,  married  a  free  woman  and  endeavored  to 
withhold  his  children  from  the  servitude  which  he  still  owed 
to  his  master,  such  infraction  of  his  master's  rights  could  be 
permitted  out  of  respect  to  his  sacerdotal  character.  Long 
and  vehement  was  the  argument  among  the  learned  prelates, 
until  finally  St.  Henry  decided  the  point  authoritatively  by 
pronouncing  in  favor  of  the  servitude  of  the  children.3 

But  perhaps  the  most  instructive  illustration  of  the  cha- 
racter and  temper  of  the  age  may  be  found  in  the  three  pre- 
lates who  for  more  than  a  century  filled  the  rich  and  powerful 


1  Episcopi  sui  temporis  aliqui  fastu  i  cunctos     recipiebat.  —  Constant.     S. 

superbise,   aliqui   simplicitate    cordis,  J  Syinphon.  Vit.  Adalbero.  II.  c.  24. 

filios   ssecularium  sacerdotum   ad  sa- !      9  y^.,,  ,T        T  T .,  0/, 

,.  ,     ...         ,    ,.       ,  2  Dithmar.  Merseberg.  Lib.  vi.  c.24. 

cros  ordmes  admittere  dedignabantur, 

nee  ad  clericatum  eos  recipere  volen- J      3  S.    Heinrici   Sentent.   de   Conjug. 

tes  ;    hie  vero  beatus,  neminem  des- j  Cleric.  (Patrologise  T.  140,  p.  231). 

piciens,    neminem    spernens,   passim 


160  THE    TENTH    CENTURY. 

archiepiscopal  see  of  Kouen.  Hugh,  whose  episcopate  lasted 
from  942  to  989,  was  nominated  at  a  period  when  William 
Longsword,  Duke  of  Normandy,  was  contemplating  a  retire- 
ment from  the  world  to  shroud  his  almost  regal  dignity  under 
the  cowl  of  the  monk,  }^et  what  little  is  known  of  his  arch- 
bishop is  that,  though  he  was  a  monk  in  habit,  he  was  an 
habitual  violator  of  the  laws'  of  God1 — in  short,  we  may 
presume,  a  man  well  suited  to  the  wild  half-pagan  times 
which  witnessed  the  assassination  of  Duke  William  and  the 
minority  of  Eichard  the  Fearless.  On  his. death  in  989,  Duke 
Eichard,  whose  piety  was  incontestably  proved  by  the  liber- 
ality of  his  monastic  foundations  and  by  his  zeal  for  the 
purity  of  his  monkish  proteges,2  filled  the  vacant  see  with  his 
son  Eobert,  who  held  the  position  until  1037.  Eobert  was 
publicly  and  openly  married,  and  by  his  wife  Herleva  he  had 
three  sons,  Eichard,  Eodolf,  and  William,  to  whom  he  dis- 
tributed his  vast  possessions.  Orclericus,  the  conscientious 
cenobite  of  the  twelfth  century,  looks,  in  truth,  somewhat 
askance  at  this  disregard  of  the  rules  accepted  during  the 
latter  period,3  yet  no  blame  seems  to  have  attached  to  Eobert 
in  the  estimation  of  his  contemporaries.  The  family  chroni- 
cler characterizes  him  as  "  Eobert  bons  clers,  honestes  horn," 
and  assures  us  that  he  was  highly  esteemed  as  a  wise  and 
learned  prelate 

Li  secunz  fu  genz  e  aperz 

Et  si  fu  apelez  Roberz. 

Clerc  en  firent,  mult  aprist  bien, 

Si  fi  sage  sor  tote  rien ; 


1  A  nullo  scriptorum  qui  de  illo  sive  et  rerum  temporalium  luxus  et  de- 
de  episcopio  ejus  locuti  sunt,  laudatus  sidias  voluptuose  sectari."  —  Anon, 
est.     Palam  memoraut  quod   habitu    Fiscannens.  c.  17. 


non  opere  monachus  fuerit. 


Nam  conjugem  nomine  Herlevam, 


Successit  Hngo,  leL'is  Domini  violator 

Clara  stirpesatus,  sedChristilnminecassus.-    ^    comes,  babuit,  ex   qua    tres    fillOS, 

Order.  Vital.  Lib.  v.  c.  10  §  41.    Richardum,  Radulfum  et  Gruillelmum 

genuit ;  quibus  Ebroieensem  comita- 
2  About  the  year  990,  for  instance,  tum  et  alios  Snores  amplissimos 
we  find  Duke  Richard  reforming  the  secundum  jus  s»euli  distribuit.— 
celebrated  Abbey  ot  Fecamp  and  re-  j  Orderic.  Vital.  Lib.  v.  c.  10  §  42. 
placing  with  Benedictines  the  former  ;  go  in  the  Normannia?  Nova  Chronica, 
occupants  —  canons  whose  secular  published  by  Cheruel  in  1850,  "Iste 
mode  of  hfe  outraged  his  pious  sensi-  Robertus  fuit  uxoratus,  et  ex  Herleva 
bihties  —  "eontigit  Fiscannenses  oa-  conjuge  sua  tres  filios  babuit,  Rich- 
nomcos  aliorum  canonicorum  mores  ardum,  Radulfum  et  Willelmum." 
imitari,  latas  perditionis  vias  ingredi,  | 


REFORMATORY    EFFORTS.  161 

De  Roem  out  l'arcevesquie 
Honore  fu  mult  e  preisie.1 

His  successor,  Mauger,  son  of  Duke  Eichard  II.,  and  arch- 
bishop from  1037  to  1054,  was  worthy  of  his  predecessors. 
Abandoned  to  worldly  and  carnal  pleasures,  his  legitimate  son 
Michael  was  a  distinguished  knight,  and  half  a  century  later 
stood  high  in  the  favor  of  Henry  I.  of  England,  in  whose 
court  he  was  personally  known  to  the  historian.2  The  times 
were  changing,  however,  and  Mauger  felt  the  full  effects  of 
reformatory  zeal,  for  he  was  deposed  in  105-4;  the  see  was 
bestowed  on  Maurilio,  a  Florentine  abbot,  who  had  been 
driven  out  by  his  monks  on  account  of  the  severity  of  his 
rule,  and  the  Norman  clergy,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  ex- 
perienced their  share  of  suffering  in  the  mutation  of  discipline. 

Notwithstanding  this  all-pervading  laxity,  the  canons  of 
the  church  remained  unaltered,  and  their  full  force  was  theo- 
retically admitted.  Hopeless  efforts,  moreover,  were  occa- 
sionally made  to  re-establish  them,  as  in  the  council  of  Anse 
in  990,  which  reminded  the  clergy  that  intercourse  with  wives 
after  ordination  was  punishable  with  forfeiture  of  benefice 
and  deprivation  of  priestly  functions;3  and  in  that  of  Poitiers 
about  the  year  1000,  which  prohibited  concubines  under  pain 
of  degradation.4  In  a  similar  spirit,  a  Penitential  of  the 
period  recapitulates  the  severe  punishments  of  a  former  age, 
involving  degradation  and  fearfully  long  terms  of  penance.5 


1  Benoit,  Chronique  des  Dues  de  j  5  Si  clericus  superioris  gradus,  qui 
Noruiandie,  v.  32427,  24912.  We  [  uxoremliabuit,etpostconfessionemvel 
may  fairly  conclude  from  these  ex-  I  honorem  clericatus  iterum  earn  cogno- 
pressions  that  Robert  was  educated  .  verit,sciat  sibiadulteriumcommisisse, 
lor  tbe  priesthood.  i  sicut  superiore  sententia  unusquisque 

2  Voluptatibuscarnismuudanisque  Juxta  orfdilie  suo  Poeniteat  [i.  e.  dia- 
curis  indecenter  inhabit,  filiumque  :  £°nUS  "*  ? 0na°hl  p'*  ^T*0  £  ? 
nomine   Michaelem   probum   militem  |  hlS  Pane  et  a(lua'     Presbyter  x.  Epis- 

.   !     ...  .j.  -at      copus  xii.,  v.  ex  his  pane  et  aqua.] 

et  legitimum  genuit,  quern  in  Anglia  ,      *      R.        .     „lpripuA,ut  monacims 
jam  senem  rex  Henricus  honorat  et    '  \'    bl  q^ib  clencus  aut  monacliub 

postquam  se  devoverit  ad  ssecularem 
habitum    iterum   reversus   fuerit   aut 


diligit. — Orderic.  Vital.  Lib.  v.  c.  10, 
§43. 


3  Concil  Ansan.  ami.  990,  c.  5. 

4  Concil.  Pictaviens.  c.  aim.  1000. 
c.  3. 

11 


uxorem  duxerit,  x.  annos  poeniteat, 
in.  ex  his  in  pane  et  aqua,  nunquam 
postea  in  conjugium  copuletur. — Ju- 
dicium Poenitentis,  ex  Sacrament. 
Rhenaug. 


162  THE    TENTH    CENTURY. 

All  this,  however,  was  practically  a  dead  letter.  The  person 
who  best  represents  the  active  intelligence  of  the  age  was 
Gerbert  of  Aurillac,  the  most  enlightened  man  of  his  time, 
who,  after  occupying  the  archiepiscopal  seats  of  Eheims  and- 
Eavenna,  finally  became  pope  under  the  name  of  Sylvester 
II.  The  lightness  with  which  he  treats  the  subject  of  celibacy 
is  therefore  fairly  a  measure  of  the  views  entertained  by  the 
ruling  spirits  of  the  church,  beyond  the  narrow  bounds  of 
cloistered  asceticism.  Gerbert,  describing  in  a  sermon  the 
requisites  of  the  episcopal  and  sacerdotal  offices,  barely  refers 
to  the  "  unius  uxor  is  vir,"  which  he  seems  to  regard  in  an 
allegorical  rather  than  in  a  literal  sense ;  he  scarcely  alludes 
to  chastity,  while  he  dilates  with  much  energy  on  simony, 
which  he  truly  characterizes  as  the  almost  universal  vice  of 
his  contemporaries.1  So  when,-  in  997,  he  Convened  the  council 
of  Eavenna  to  regulate  the  discipline  of  his  church,  he  paid 
no  attention  whatever  to  incontinence,  while  strenuously  en- 
deavoring to  root  out  simony.2  At  an  earlier  period,  while 
Abbot  of  Bobbio,  in  an  epistle  to  his  patron,  the  Emperor 
Otho  II.,  refuting  various  calumnies  of  his  enemies,  he  alludes 
to  a  report  of  his  having  a  wife  and  children  in  terms  which 
show  how  little  importance  he  attached  to  the  accusation.3 

Such,  at  the -opening  of  the  eleventh  century,  was  the  con- 
dition of  the  church  as  regards  ascetic  celibacy.  Though 
the  ancient  canons  were  still  theoretically  in  force,  they 
were  practically  obsolete  everywhere.  Legitimate-  marriage 
or  promiscuous  profligacy  was  almost  universal,  in  some 
places  unconcealed,  in  others  covered  with  a  thin  veil  of 
hypocrisy,  according  as  the  temper  of  the  ruling  prelate 
might  be  indulgent  or  severe.  So  far,  therefore,  Latin 
Christianity  had  gained  but  little  in  its  struggle  of  six  cen- 
turies with  human  nature.     Whether  the  next  eight  hundred 


1  Gerberti  Sermo  de  Informat.  Epis-  •  lectam." — Gerberti  Epist.  Sect.  I.  No. 
eopor.  ;  xi. — Gerbert's  reputation  for  sanctity 

„  _    ,   "        _  ..„_  ,T,,      is  not  such  as  to  render  scandalous  the 

■  Gerberti    Opp.    p.   19/    sqq.    (^-    suspicion  that  the  famii7  thus  gather- 
Migne).  ed  aroun(j  hjuj  might  afford  legitimate 

3  "Taceodemequemnovolocutioms    occasion  for  gossip,  notwithstanding 
genere  equum  emissarium  susurrant,  ;  his  abbacy  and  the  fact  that  he  had 
uxorem   et   filios    habentem,   propter    been  bred  in  a  convent, 
partem  familise  me?e  de  Francia  recol-  j 


CONDITION    OF    THE    CHURCH.  163 

years  will  show  a  more  favorable  result,  remains  for  us  to 
develop. 

Before  proceeding,  however,  to  discuss  the  events  of  the 
succeeding  century,  it  will  be  well  to  cast  a  rapid  glance  at  a 
portion  of  Christendom,'  the  isolation  of  which  has  thus  far 
precluded  it  from  receiving  attention. 


hi  is  n  a  u  \ 

>>'  JV/;  j;  Sf  TV    ()|, 

CA-UKOUXJA. 

■ —  


XI. 
SAXON  ENGLAND. 

Whatever  of  virtue  or  purity  may  have  distinguished  the 
church  of  Britain  under  Eoman  domination  was  speedily  ex- 
tinguished in  the  confusion  of  the  Saxon  occupation.  Gildas, 
who  nourished  in  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century,  describes 
the  clergy  of  his  time  as  utterly  corrupt.1  Under  Saxon  rule, 
Christianity  was  probably  well-nigh  trampled  out,  except  in 
the  remoter  mountain  districts,  to  be  subsequently  restored 
in  its  sacerdotal  form  under  the  direct  auspices  of  Eome. 

Meanwhile,  the  British  Isles  were  the  theatre  of  another 
and  independent  religious  movement.  While  the  Saxons 
were  subverting  Christianity  in  Britain,  St.  Patrick  was  suc- 
cessfully engaged  in  laying  the  foundations  of  the  Irish 
church.2  We  have  seen  that  he  apparently  hesitated  in  estab- 
lishing compulsory  celibacy  for  his  sacerdotal  class ;  but  this 
was  of  comparatively  little  moment,  for  he  took  the  strictest 
views  as  to  monastic  asceticism,3  and  the  church  which  he 
founded  was  peculiarly  monastic  in  its  character.  That  the 
principles  which  he  established  were  long  preserved  is  evi- 
dent from  a  curious  collection  of  Hibernian  canons,  made  in 
the  eighth  century,  of  which  selections  have  been  published 
by  d'Achery  and  Martene.  Some  of  these  are  credited  by  the 
compilers  to  Gildas,  and  thus  show  the  discipline  of  the  early 
British  as  well  as  of  the  Irish  church.4     Their  tendency  is 


Ita  ut  clerici  (quod  non  absque  ]  exist.      Meanwhile   I    may  add   that 
dolore    cordis    fateor)    impudici,    bi- 1  few   remote  events  appear  to  rest  on 


lingues,  ebrii,  turpis  lucri  cupidi 
habentes  fidem,  et  ut  verius  dicam, 
infidelitatem,  in  conscientia  impura, 
non  probati  in  bona,  sed  in  malo 
opere  pnesciti  ministrantes,  et  innu- 
mera  crimina  habentes,  sacro  minis- 
terio  adsciscantur. — Gcildse  de  Excid. 
Britan.  Pt.  m.  cap.  23— Cf.  cap.  1,  2,  3. 

2  Modern  criticism  has  raised  doubts 
as  to  the  existence  of  St.  Patrick. 
Whether  they  are  well-grounded  or 
not  is  a  matter  of  little  importance 


better  authority  than  the  conversion 
of  the  Gaeidhil,  about  the  year  438,  by 
a  person  known  to  his  contemporaries 
as  Patraic,  or  Patricius  ;  and  the  name 
of  Cain  Patraic  applied  to  the  secular 
code  attributed  to  him,  dates  from  a 
very  high  antiquity. — See  Senchus 
Mor,  Hancock's  Ed.  Dublin,  1865.  ' 

3  Synod.    S.    Patricii    I.    can.    17. 
Synod.  II.  can.  17. 

4  Abedoc  et  Ethelvolfi  Canon.  Lib. 
xxxvin.  cap.  7.  (D'Achery).— Prsefat. 


here,  as  we  are  concerned  only  with  UnAfB  de  Poeniteilt.  cap.  1#     (Martene 
the   institutions    bearing    his i    name ,,        Durand.  IV.  7.) 
which    institutions    undoubtedly   did  | 


THE    CULDEES.  165 

towards  the  purest  asceticism.  A  penance  of  forty  days  was 
even  enjoined  on  the  ecclesiastic  who,  without  thought  of  evil 
indulged  in  the  pleasure  of  converse  with  a  woman.1  So  in 
Ireland,  a  council  held  in  672  decrees  that  a  priest  guilty  of 
unchastity,  although  removable  according  to  the  strict  rule 
of  discipline,  may  be  allowed,  if  truly  contrite,  to  retain  his 
position  on  undergoing  ten  years  of  penitence2 — an  alterna- 
tive, one  might  think,  rather  of  severity  than  of  mercy. 

The  missionary  career  by  which  the  Irish  church  repaid 
the  debt  that  it  owed  to  Christianity  is  well  known,  but  the 
form  of  faith  which  it  spread  was  almost  exclusively  monastic. 
Luanus,  one  of  the  monks  of  Benchor,  is  said  to  have  founded 
no  less  than  a  hundred  monasteries;3  and  when  Columba 
established  the  Christian  religion  in  Scotland,  he  carried  with 
him  this  tendency  to  asceticism  and  inculcated  it  among  his 
Pictish  neophytes.  His  Eule  enjoins  the  most  absolute 
purity  of  mind  as  well  as  body  ;4  and  that  his  teachings  were 
long  obeyed  is  evident  when  we  find  that,  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years  later,  his  disciples  are  praised  for  the  chastity  and  zeal 
of  their  self-denying  lives  by  the  Venerable  Bede,  who  was 
fully  alive  to  the  importance  of  the  rule,  and  who  would  have 
wasted  no  such  admiration  on  the  Culdees  had  they  lived  in 
open  disregard  of  it.5  Equally  convincing  is  the  fact  that 
Scotland  and  the  Islands  were  under  the  supremacy  of  the 
see  of  York,  and  that  during  the  long  controversy  requisite 

1  Lib.  de  Remed.  Peccat.  cap.  de  sores  magna  continentia  ac  divino 
Fornlcat.  (Martene  IV.  23).  —  Cf.  amore  regularique  histitutione  insig- 
Synod.  Aquilon.Britan.  cap.l.  (Ibid,  nes  .  .  .  pietatis  et  castitatis  opera 
P*  9.)  diligenter  observantes.     (Bedse  Hist. 

2  In  this  long  course  of  penance,  !  ^ccJle,s'  LlJ-  m-  c-  4>  cf-  »!«>  °-  2<5.) 
three  months  were  to  be  spent  in  Bede  s  orthodoxy  on  the  subject  is  un- 
solitary  confinement,  with  bread  and  VW*ttonable :  "Sacerdotibus  ut  sem- 
water  at  night ;  then  eighteen  months  per  altan  <lueant  assistere,  semper  ab 
in  fasting  on  bread  and  water ;  then  uxoribus  continendum,  semper  cas- 
bread  and  water  three  days  in  the  titas  observandapiaecipitur."  (InLu- 
week  for  five  years  and  three  months  ;  C8e  Evang-  Exposit.  Lib.  I.  cap.  1.)— 
then  bread  and  water  on  Fridays  for  Quanta  sunt  maledictione  digni  qui 
the  remaining  three  years.— Gratian.  i  Prohlbellt  nubere  et  dispositionem  coe- 

lestis  decreti  quasi  a  diabolo  repertam 
condemnant  ?  .  .  .  sed  magis  honor- 
anda,'  majore  est   digna  benedictione 


Dist.  lxxxii.  o.  5. 

3  Bernardi  Vit.  S.  Malachiae,  cap.  vi. 

4  S.  Columbani  Regul.  cap.  vi. 

5  Reliquit     (Columbanus)     succes- 


virginitas."    (Hexaemeron.  Lib.  i.  sub 
tit.  Benedixitque  illis.) 


166  SAXON    ENGLAND. 

to  break  down  their  schismatic  notions  respecting  the  date  of 
Easter  and  the  shape  of  the  tonsnre,  not  a  word  was  said  that 
can  lead  to  the  supposition  that  they  held  any  unorthodox 
views  on  the  far  more  important  subject  of  sacerdotal  purity.1 

When,  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  Anglo-Saxon 
conquest,  Gregory  the  Great  undertook  the  conversion  of  the 
islanders,  the  missionaries  whom  he  despatched  under  Augus- 
tine of  course  carried  with  them  the  views  and  ideas  which 
then  held  undisputed  sway  in  Eome.  Apparently,  however, 
asceticism  found  little  favor  at  first  with  the  new  converts, 
rendering  it  difficult  for  Augustine  to  obtain  sufficient  co- 
laborers  among  his  disciples,  for  he  applied  to  Gregory  to 
learn  whether  he  might  allow  those  who  could  not  restrain 
their  passions  to  marry  and  yet  remain  in  the  ministry.  To 
this  Gregory  replied  evasively,  stating,  what  Augustine 
already  knew,  that  the  lower  grades  might  marry,  but  making 
no  reference  whatever  to  the  higher  orders.2  He  apparently 
did  not  wish  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  relaxing  the 
rule,  while  willing  perhaps  to  connive  at  its  suspension  in 
iprder  to  encourage  the  infant  Anglican  church.  If  so,  the 
indulgence  was  but  temporary. 

The  attempt  has  been  made  to  prove  that  marriage  was 
permitted  in  the  early  Saxon  church,  and  support  for  this 
supposition  has  been  sought  from  a  clause  in  the  Dooms  of 
King  Ina,  of  which  the  date  is  about  the  year  700,  fixing  the 
wehr-gild  of  the  sod  of  a  bishop.  But  the  caption  of  the  law 
shows  that  it  refers  rather  to  a  godson;3  and  even  if  it  were 
not  so,  we  have  already  seen  how  often  in  France,  at  the 
same  period,  the  episcopal  office  was  bestowed  on  eminent  or 


1  See,  for  instance,  the  proceedings 
of  the  synod  of  Whitby  in  664,  where 
the  differences  between  the  Scottish 
and  Roman  observances  were  fully 
discussed  (Spelman.  Concil.  I.  145). 
So  when,  in  633,  Honorius  I.  addressed 
the  Scottish  clergy,  reproving  their 
false  computation  of  Easter  and.  their 
Pelagianism,  he  made  no  allusion  to 
any  want  of  clerical  purity. — (Bedse 
Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  II.  c.  19.) 


nere  non  valentes,  possint  contrahere  ; 
et  si  contraxerint,  an  debeant  ad  ssecu- 
lum  redire  —  to  which  Gregory  re- 
sponds with  a  long  exhortation  as  to 
the  duties  of  the  "  clerici  extra  sacros 
ordines  constitute "— G-regor.  I.  Regist. 
Lib.  xi.  Epist.  lxiv.  Respons.  2. 

3  Si  episcopi  Alius  sit,  sit  dimidium 
hoc  (Leg.  Inse  c.  lxxvi.).  The  rubric 
of  the  law  is  "  De  occidente  filiolum 
vel  patrinum  alicujus"  (Thorpe,  An- 


2  Opto  enim  doceri  an  clerici  conti-  |  cient  Laws  of  England,  II.  472) 


CELIBACY    IN    THE    EARLY    SAXON    CHURCH.      167 


influential  laymen,  who  were  obliged  on  its  acceptance  to 
part  with  their  wives.  The  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  indeed, 
describe  a  council  held  in  London  in  712  or  714,  by  which 
image-worship  was  introduced  and  separation  between  priests 
and  their  wives  was  decreed,1  but  there  is  no  authority  cited, 
nor  is  such  an  assembly  elsewhere  alluded  to,  even  Cave  pro- 
nouncing it  evidently  supposititious.2 

These  speculations  are  manifestly  groundless.  The  cele- 
brated Theodore,  who  was  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  from 
668  to  690,  in  his  Liber  Poeniteniialis,  expresses  the  rule  in 
the  most  positive  and  unequivocal  form  ;3  nor  can  we  suppose 
that  his  vigorous  primacy  would  allow  these  canons  to  be 
wholly  inoperative  in  a  church  sufficiently  enlightened  to 
produce  the  learning  and  piety  of  men  like  Bede  and  St. 
Aldhelm;  where  the  admiration  of  virginity  was  as  great  as 
that  which  finds  utterance  in  the  writings  of  these  fathers,4  and 
the  principles  of  asceticism  were  so  influential  as  to  lead  a 
powerful  monarch  like  Ina  to  retire  with  his  queen,  Ethel- 
berga,  from  the  throne  which  he  had  gloriously  filled,  to  the 
holy  restrictions  of  a  monastic  life. 

Ecgberht,  who  was  Archbishop  of  York  from  735  to  766, 


1  Denique  promulgatur  decretuni  menta"  :  "  Episcopus  aut  presbyter 
.  .  .  de  abdicandis  saoerdotum  uxori-  aut  diaconus,  qui  in  fornicatione  aut 
bus. — Spelraan.  Concil.  I.  216.  i  perjurio  aut  furto  lapsus  est,  depona- 

o  n           a    ■   *.     -v    i         n-i  tun"  (Thorpe,  II.  74.) 

2  Cave,    Script.    Lccles.    Hist.    pp.  !              v         ^  '             J 

424-5  (Ed.  1705).  "  See,   for  instance,  St.   Aldhelm's 

,  m       ,       T -i    ti      -l                     •••  '  rhapsodies,  "De  laudibus  virginitatis" 

3  Theodor.  Lib.  Pcenitent.  cap.  xvm.  an/  „  De  'laudibus  virginum.»  The 
§5  Si  quis  clencus  vel  superior*  orthodo  of  Bede  on\Me  question 
gradus  qui  uxorem  habuit,  et  post  h  ^  £  been  aUuded  ^ 
conversionem  vel  honorem  clencatus  Aocording  to  the  ,  d  St>  Aldheim 
iteruni  earn  cognovit,  sciat  sibi  adul-  tried  hig  yfrtue  b  ^  game  crudal 
tenum  commisisse;  sicut  superior!  inienta  as  those  resorted  to  b 
Sententia,unusquisquemxtaordmem  £  f  ^  ardent  devoteeg  of  ^ 
suum  poeniteat.-§  6  Presbyter  vel  hird  ^  concealing  his  motive 
diaconus,  si  uxorem  extraneam  dure-  ,n  Qrd  hat'  hifl  hnmili\y  mi  ht  en. 
rit,  in  conseientia  populi  deponatur.  of  undeserved  . 
Si  vero  adultermm  perpetraverit  cum  *J^  M  San(jti  Alddmi  Malmeabu. 
illa,et  in  conseientia  populi  devemt,  riensi  ;  illter  duas  puellas,  unam 
projiciatur  extra  ecclesiam,  et  poem-  aQ  unQ'  ^  alteram  ab  ftU  sin- 
teat  inter  laicos  quamdm  vixerit.  DOotibus  ut  ab  hominibus  dif- 

Cap  xvm.  §  lb.    hi  quia  clencus  au  ?amaretur,  a  Deo  vero  cui  nota  fuerat 

monachus,  postquam  se  Deo  vovent  conscientia  j     ius  et   Continentia  co- 

.         uxorem  duxerit,  x.  annos  poe-  ius    ,B    iterum    remuneraretur, 

mteat,  in.  ex  his  m  pane  et  aqua  et  [acuisse  describitur."-Girald.  Cam- 

nunquam  postea  inconjugiocopuletur.  {^  Gemm>  g^  ^  „           xy 
So  also  in  his  "  Capitula  et  rrag- 


168 


SAXON    ENGLAND 


is  no  less  peremptory  than  Theodore,  and  the  prominence 
which  he  gives  to  the  various  canons  respecting  sacerdotal 
purity  shows  the  importance  attached  to  the  subject  in  the 
discipline  of  his  church.1  It  is  also  probable  that  even  the 
Britons,  who  derived  their  Christianity  from  the  older  and 
purer  sources  of  the  primitive  church,  preserved  the  rule  with 
equal  reverence.  At  the  request  of  a  national  council,  St. 
Aldhelm  addressed  an  epistle  to  the  Welsh  king,  Geruntius, 
to  induce  him  to  reform  his  church  so  as  to  bring  it  within 
the  pale  of  Catholic  unity.  To  accomplish  this,  he  argues  at 
length  upon  the  points  of  difference,  discussing  the  various 
errors  of  faith  and  discipline,  such  as  the  shape  of  the  ton- 
sure, the  date  of  Easter,  &c,  but  he  is  silent  with  regard  to 
marriage  or  concubinage.2  Had  the  Welsh  church  been 
schismatic  in  this  respect,  so  ardent  a  celibatarian  as  Aldhelm 
would  certainly  not  have  omitted  all  reference  to  a  subject  of 
so  much  interest  to  him.  The  inference  is  therefore  justi- 
fiable that  no  difference  of  this  nature  existed. 

We  may  fairly  conclude  that  the  discipline  of  the  church 
in  these  matters  was  reasonably  well  maintained  by  the  Saxon 
clergy,  with  the  exception  of  the  nunneries,  the  morals  of 
which  institutions  appear  to  have  been  deplorably  and  in- 
curably lax.  St.  Boniface,  whose  zeal  on  the  subject  has 
already  been  sufficiently  made  manifest,  about  the  year  746 
paused  in  his  reformation  of  the  French  priesthood  to  urge 
upon  Cuthbert,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  necessity  of 
repressing  the  vices  of  the  Saxon  ecclesiastics.  He  dwells  at 
considerable  length  upon  their  various  crimes  and  misde- 
meanors— drunkenness,  unclerical  garments,  neglect  of  their 
sacred  functions,  &c. — but  he  does  not  accuse  them  of  un- 
chastity,  which  he  could  not  well  have  avoided  doing  had 
there  been  colorable  grounds  for  such  a  charge.  In  fact,  the 
only  allusion  connected  with  the  question  in  his  epistle  is  a 
request  that  some  restrictions  should  be  laid  upon  the  per- 
missions granted  to  women  and  nuns  for  pilgrimage  to  Eome, 
on  account  of  the  attendant  dangers  to  their  virtue;  in  illus- 


1  Ecgberti  Excerption,  c.  15. — Con- 
fessional, c.  3,  4,  8, 12, 13, 19.— Pceni- 
tential.  Addit.  c.  28. 


2  Epist.  ad   Greruntium. — Aldhelmi 
Opp.  p.  83  (Ed.  Oxon.  1844). 


DISORDERS    IN    THE    NUNNERIES. 


169 


tration  of  which  he  states  the  lamentable  fact  that  scarcely  a 
city  in  Lombardy,  France,  or  the  Ehinelands  but  had  Saxon 
courtesans  derived  from  this  source,  to  the  shame  and  scandal 
of  the  whole  church.1 

Pope  Zachary  seconded  these  representations,  and  in  747 
Cuthbert,  yielding  to  the  impulsion,  held  the  celebrated 
council  of  ClyfF,  which  adopted  thirty  canons  on  discipline, 
to  remedy  the  disorders  enumerated  by  Boniface.  Among 
these,  the  only  ones  directed  against  unchastity  relate  solely 
to  the  nunneries,  which  are  represented  as  being  in  a  con- 
dition of  gross  immorality.2  The  council  does  not  spare  the 
vices  of  the  secular  clergy,  and  its  silence  with  respect  to 
their  purity  fairly  permits  the  inference  that  there  was  not 
much  to  correct  with  regard  to  it,  for  had  licentiousness  been 
so  prevalent  that  Cuthbert  had  feared  to  denounce  it,  or  had 
sacerdotal  marriage  been  passed  over  as  lawful,  the  zeal  of 
St.  Boniface  would  have  led  to  an  explosion,  and  Zachary 
would  not  have  sanctioned  the  proceedings  by  his  approval. 

The  same  argument  is  applicable  to  the  council  of  Calchuth, 
held  in  787  by  the  legates  of  Adrian  I.,  under  the  presidency 
of  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Ostia.  The  vices  and  shortcomings^1 
of  the  Anglican  church  were  there  sharply  reproved,  but  no 
allusion  was  made  to  any  unchastity  prevailing  among  the 
priesthood,  with  the  exception,  as  before,  of  nuns,  on  whom 
we  may  infer  that  previous  reformatory  efforts  had  been 
wasted.3     That  this  reticence  did  not  arise  from  any  license 


1  Perpaucse  enim  sunt  civitates  in 
Longobardia  vel  in  Francia  aut  in 
Gallia,  in  qua  non  sit  adultera  vel 
meretrix  generis  Anglorum,  quod  scan- 
dalum  est  et  turpitude-  totius  ecclesia?. 
— Bonifacii  Epist.  105. 

2  Can.  20  directs  greater  strictness 
with  regard  to  visitors, "  unde  non  sint 
sanctimonialium  domicilia  turpium 
confabulationum,  commessationum, 
ebrietatum,  luxuriantiumque  cubi- 
lia."  Can.  28  orders  that  nuns  after 
taking  the  veil  shall  not  wear  lay 
garments  ;  and  can.  29  that  clerks, 
monks,  and  nuns  shall  not  live  with 
the  laity.  (Spelman.  Concii.  I.  250-4.) 

This  demoralization  of  the  nunneries 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at  when  Boniface, 


in  reproving  Ethelbald,  King  of  Mercia, 
for  his  evil  courses,  could  say,  "Et 
adhuc,  quod  pejus  est,  qui  nobis  nar- 
rant  adjiciunt :  quod  hoc  scelus  maxi- 
me  cum  Sanctis  monialibus  et  sacratis 
Deo  virginibus  per  monasteria  com- 
missum  sit." — Bonifacii  Epist.  19. 

3  Thus  the  council,  in  disinheriting 
illegitimate  children,  considered  it 
necessary  to  declare  (can.  16) — "Adul- 
terinos  namque  filios  ac  sanctimoni- 
alium, authoritate  apostolica,  spuria 
ac  adulteros  judicamus.  Virginem 
namque,  quae  se  Deo  voverit,  et  ad 
instar  sanctse  Maria?  vestem  induerit, 
sponsam  Christi  vocitare  non  dubita- 
mus."   (Spelman.  Concii.  I.  298.) 


170  SAXON   ENGLAND. 

granted  for  marriage  is  conclusively  shown  by  the  interpola- 
tion of  the  word  laicus  in  the  text  I.  Cor.  VII.  2,  which  is 
quoted  among  the  canons  adopted.1  To  the  same  effect  are 
the  canons  of  the  council  of  Celichyth,  in  816,  in  which  the 
only  allusion  to  such  matters  is  a  provision  to  prevent  the 
election  of  unfit  persons  to  abbacies,  and  to  punish  monks 
and  nuns  who  secularize  themselves.2 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  true  that  about  this  time  St. 
Swithin,  after  obtaining  orders,  was  openly  married;  but  his 
biographer  states  that  he  had  a  special  dispensation  from  Leo 
III.,  and  that  he  consented  to  it  because,  on  the  death  of  his 
parents,  he  was  the  sole  representative  of  his  family.3  As 
Swithin  was  tutor  to  Ethelwulf,  son  of  King  Ecgberht,  the 
papal  condescension  is  by  no  means  impossible. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  church  at  this 
period.  During  the  century  which  follows,  the  materials  for 
tracing  the  vicissitudes  of  the  question  before  us  are  of  the 
scantiest  description.  The  occasional  councils  which  were 
held  have  left  but  meagre  records  of  their  deliberations, 
with  few  or  no  references  to  the  subject  of  celibacy.  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  a  rapid  deterioration  in  the  strictness 
of  discipline  occurred,  for  even  the  power  of  the  great  Bret- 
walda  Ecgberht  was  unequal  to  the  task  of  repressing  effectu- 
I  ally  the  first  invasions  of  the  Northmen,  and  under  his  feebler 
successors  they  grew  more  and  more  destructive,  until  they 
culminated  in  the  anarchy  which  gave  occasion  to  the  ro- 
mantic adventures  of  Alfred. 

It  is  to  this  period  of  darkness  that  we  must  attribute  the 
introduction  of  sacerdotal  marriage,  which  became  so  firmly 
established  and  was  finally  so  much  a  matter  of  course  that 
it  attracted  no  special  attention,  until  the  efforts  made  for  its 
abrogation  late  in  the  succeeding  century.  When  Alfred 
undertook  to  restore  order  in  his  recovered  kingdom,  the 


1  Propter  fornicationem  fugiendam  i  3  De  gradu  in  gradum  ...  ad  sa- 
unusquisque  laicus  suam  uxorem  le-  cerdotii  honorem  provectus  est  .  .  . 
gitimam  habeat. — Concil.  Calchuth.  patre  ejus  decedente,  cum  praeter  eum 
cau.  16.  !  nullus  alius  hseres  superesset,  Leone 

1  poutifice  dispensante,  uxorem  duxit. 
Concil.  Celicyth.  can.  4,  8.  — Gosceliui  Vit.  S.  Swithuni  c.  1,  2. 


ST.    DUNSTAN 


171 


body  of  laws  which  he  compiled  contains  no  allusion  to 
celibacy,  except  as  regards  the  chastity  of  nuns.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  constitutions  of  Odo,  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, to  which  the  date  of  943  is  attributed,  although  they 
contain  instructions  as  to  the  conduct  of  bishops,  priests,  and 
clerks1 — whence  we  may  infer  that  the  marriage  even  of  con- 
secrated virgins  was  not  uncommon,  and  that  it  was  the  only 
infraction  of  the  rule  which  aroused  the  opposition  of  the 
hierarchy.  Simple  immorality  called  forth  an  occasional  en- 
actment, as  in  the  laws  of  Edward  and  Guthrun  about  the  year 
906,  and  in  those  of  Edmund  I.  in  944,2  yet  even  to  this  but 
little  attentiou  seems  to  have  been  attracted,  until  St.  Dunstan 
undertook  a  reformation  which  was  sorely  needed. 

St.  Dunstan  himself,  although  regularly  bred  to  the  church, 
with  the  most  brilliant  prospects  both  from  his  distinguished 
abilities  and  his  powerful  kindred,  betrothed  himself  in  mar- 
riage after  receiving  the  lower  orders.  His  uncle,  St.  Elphegus, 
Bishop  of  Winchester — apparently  a  churchman  of  the  stricter 
school — vehemently  opposed  the  union,  but  Dunstan  was  im- 
movable in  his  determination.  Elphegus,  finding  his  worldly 
wisdom  set  at  naught,  appealed  to  the  assistance  of  heaven. 
His  prayer  was  answered,  and  Dunstan  was  attacked  with  a 
mysterious  and  loathsome  malady,  under  which  his  iron  reso- 
lution gave  way.  He  sought  Elphegus,  took  the  monastic 
vow  (the  only  inseparable  bar  to  matrimony),  and  was  ordained 
a  priest.3  This  stern  experience  might  have  taught  him  charity 
for  the  weakness  of  natures  less  unbending  than  his  own,  but 
his  temperament  was  not  oue  to  pause  half  way.  If,  too,  re- 
ligious conviction  urged  him  to  the  task  of  restoring  the 
forgotten  discipline  of  the  church,  worldly  ambition  might 
reasonably  claim  its  share  in  his  motives.  He  could  not  but 
feel  that  his  authority  would  be  vastly  enhanced  by  rendering 


1  Leg.  Aluredi  c.  8,  18. — Coustit. 
Odou.  Cantuar.  c.  7. 

2  Leg.  Edwardi  et  Guthrun  c.  3. — 
Leg.  Eadmund.  Eccles.  c.  1. 

1  Bridfrit.  Vit.  S.  Dunstan.  c.  5,  7. 
Bridfrithwas  a  disciple  of  St.  Dunstan, 
and  composed  his  biography  but  a  few 
years  after  the  death  of  his  patron. 


He  does  not  state  what  was  the  po- 
sition of  Dunstan  at  the  time  of  his 
betrothal ;  but  Osbern,  a  hundred 
years  later,  asserts  that  he  had  ac- 
quired the  lower  orders  only,  and  that 
he  received  the  priesthood  and  took 
the  monastic  vows  simultaneously. — 
Osberni  Vit.  S.  Dunstan.  c.  8,  12. 


172 


SAXON    ENGLAND. 


the  great  ecclesiastical  body  dependent  entirely  upon  him  as 
the  representative  of  Eome,  and  by  sundering  the  ties  which 
divided  the  allegiance  due  wholly  to  the  church. 

The  opportunity  to  effect  a  reformation  presented  itself 
:when  the  young  king,  Edgar  the  Pacific/  in  963  violated  all 
the  dictates  of  honor  and  religion  in  his  adventure  with  the 
nun  at  Wilton.  Her  resistance  attested  her  innocence,  and 
the  birth  of  a  daughter  did  not  prevent  her  subsequent  canoni- 
zation as  St.  Wilfreda ;  but  Edgar's  crime  and  remorse  were 
only  the  more  heightened.  When  the  terror-stricken  king 
sought  pardon  and  absolution,  Dunstan  was  prepared  with 
his  conditions.  Seven  years  of  penitence,  during  which  he 
was  to  abstain  from  wearing  the  crown,  was  the  personal  in- 
fliction imposed  on  him,  but  the  most  important  portion  of 
the  sentence  was  that  by  which  the  vices  of  the  king  were  to 
be  redeemed  by  the  enforced  virtues  of  his  subjects.  He 
promised  the  founding  of  monasteries  and  the  reformation  of 
the  clergy ;  and  his  implicit  obedience  to  the  demands  of  his 
ghostly  judge  is  shown,  perhaps,  less  in  the  fact  that  his  coro- 
nation did  not  take  place  until  973,  than  in  the  active  measures 
immediately  set  on  foot  with  respect  to  the  morals  of  the 
ecclesiastics.1 

That  their  morals,  indeed,  needed  reformation  is  the  unani- 
mous testimony  of  all  the  chroniclers  of  the  period.  Among 
all  the  monasteries  of  England,  formerly  so  noted  for  their 
zeal  and  prosperity,  only  those  of  Abingdon  and  Glaston- 
bury were  inhabited  by  monks.2  The  rest  had  fallen  into 
ruin,  or  were  occupied  by  the  secular  clergy,  with  their 
wives,  or  worse,  and  were  notorious  as  places  of  the  most 
scandalous    dissipation    and    disorder.3       So    low    was    the 


1  Osbern.  Vit.  S.  Dunstan.  c.  35.— 
Florent.  Wigorn.  aim.  9g4,  973. — 
Matt.  Westmonast.  aim.  963. 

2  Nam  hactenus  in  gente  Anglorum 
ea  tempestate  non  liabebantur  mona- 
chi  nisi  in  Glastonia  et  Abendonia. — 
Vit.  S.  iEthelwoldi  c.  14. 

3  Si  ista  solerti  scrutinio  curassetis, 
non  tam  borrenda  et  abominanda  ad 
aures  nostras  de  clericis  pervenissent 
.  .  .  dicam  dolens  quo  modo  diffluant 


in  commessationibus,  in  ebrietatibus, 
in  cubilibus  et  impudicitiis,  ut  jam 
domus  clericorum  putentur  prostibula 
meretricum,  conciliabulum  histrio- 
num  .  .  .  Ad  hoc  ergo  exhauserunt 
patres  nostri  thesauros  suos  ?  ad  hoc 
fiscus  regius,  detractis  redditibus 
multis  elargitus  est  ?  ad  hoc  ecclesiis 
Christi  agros  et  possessiones  regalis 
munificentia  contulit,  ut  deliciis  cleri- 
corum meretrices  ornentur?  luxuriosa? 
convivse  prseparentur  ?  canes  ac  aves 


THREE    REFORMERS. 


113 


standard  of  morality  that  priests  even  scrupled  not  to  put 
away  the  wives  of  whom  they  grew  tired,  and  to  form  new 
connections,  of  open  and  public  adultery  ;T  and  so  common 
had  this  become  that  a  code  of  ecclesiastical  law,  probably 
drawn  up  about  this  time,  reproves  this  systematic  bigamy, 
and  appears  to  tacitly  authorize  marriage  as  legitimate  and 
honorable.3  One  author  declares  that  none  but  paupers  could 
be  found  willing  to  bind  themselves  by  monastic  vows  ;3  and 
another  asserts,  with  every  show  of  reason,  that  the  clergy 
were  not  only  not  superior  to  the  laity  in  any  respect,  but 
were  even  far  worse  in  the  scandals  of  their  daily  life.4 

When  King  Edgar  made  his  peace  with  the  church  by  con- 
senting to  the  vicarious  penitence  of  the  priesthood,  three 
rigid  and  austere  monks  were  the  ardent  ministers  of  the  royal 
determination.  Of  St.  Dunstan,  the  primate  of  England,  I 
have  already  spoken.  St.  Ethelwold,  his  pupil,  Abbot  of 
Abingdon,  was  elevated  to  the  see  of  Winchester,  and  com- 
menced the  movement  by  expelling  the  occupants  of  the 
monastery  there.  A  few  who  consented  to  take  monastic 
vows  were  allowed  to  remain,  and  the  remainder  were  re- 
placed by  monks ;  but  even  St.  Ethelwold's  rigor  had  to  bend 


et  talia  ludicra  comparentur?  Hoc 
milites  clamant,  plebs  submurinurat, 
niimi  cantant  et  saltant,  et  vos  negli- 
gitis,vos  parcitis,  vos  dissimulates. — 
Oratio  Edgar!  arm.  9(39  (Spelman. 
Concil.  I.  477). 

1  Erat  autem  tunc  in  veteri  mo- 
nasterio  (Wintonensi)  ubi  cathedra 
episcopalis  habebatnr  malemorigerati 
clerici,  elatione  et  insolentia  ac  luxuria 
prseventi,  adeo  ut  nonnulli  eorum  de- 
dignarentur  missas  suo  ordine  cele- 
brare  ;  repndiantes  uxores  (quas  illi- 
cite  duxerant)  et  alias  accipientes, 
guise  et  ebrietati  jugiter  dediti. — Vit. 
S.  JEthelwold.  c.  12.— This  biography 
was  written  by  St.  iElfric,  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  who  was  a  contem- 
porary. 

2  "  GKf  preorst  cwenan  forlaete  and 
o5re  nime,  ana]>ema  sit"  (Leg.  Pres- 
byt.  Northumbriens.  c.  35).  Spel- 
man's  translation  of  this  "  Si  presbyter 
concubinam  suain  dimiserit  et  aliam 


acceperit,  anathema  sit"  (Concil.  I. 
498)  is  perhaps  hardly  correct.  Cwene 
can  be  interpreted  in  either  a  good  or 
a  bad  sense,  as  a  wife  or  a  mistress  ; 
and  the  terms  of  the  law  show  that 
the  connection  was  a  recognized  one, 
the  sin  consisting  in  disregarding  it. 
If  the  priest's  companion  were  only 
a  concubine,  his  guilt  would  not  be 
measurably  increased  by  merely 
changing  his  unlawful  consort. 

3  In  his  diebus  corrupta  erat  tota 
religio  Anglise,  propter  incursionem 
paganorum,  et  propter  austeritatem 
regulre  S.  Benedicti,  ita  quod  vix 
aliquis  susciperet  monachatum  nisi 
pauper. ^--Chron.  de  Abbat.  Abben- 
donise.     (Chron.  Abingdon.  II.  279.) 

4  Interea  tanta  clericalis  ordo  qui- 
busdam  in  locis  confusione  agebatur, 
ut  non  solum  a  vita  saecularium  ex- 
cellentius  nihil  haberet,  verum  etiam 
improbis  actibus  longe  inferior  jace- 
ret. — Osberni  Vit.  S.  Dunstan.  c.  36. 


174  SAXON    ENGLAND. 

to  the  depravity  of  the  age,  and  he  was  forced  to  relax  the 
rigidity  of  the  rule  in  order  to  obtain  recruits  of  a  better 
class.1  The  difficulties  he  encountered  are  indicated  by  the 
legend  which  relates  that  he  was  poisoned  in  his  wine  and 
carried  from  table  to  his  couch  in  excruciating  torment,  where 
he  lay  hopeless  till,  reproaching  himself  with  want  of  faith, 
he  repeated  the  text — "  Et  si  mortiferum  quid  biberint,  non 
eis  nocebitur,"  and  was  cured  on  the  instant.2  That  his 
canons  were  quite  capable  of  such  an  attempt  may  be 
assumed  from  the  description  given  of  them  in  the  bull 
procured  by  Dunstan  from  John  XIII.,  authorizing  their 
ejection  by  the  king.  The  pope  does  not  hesitate  to  stig- 
matize them  as  vessels  of  the  devil,  hateful  to  all  good 
Christians  on  account  of  their  inveterate  and  ineradicable 
wickedness.3 

The  third  member  of  the  reforming  triumvirate  was  St. 
Oswald,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  who  undertook  a  similar  trans- 
formation of  the  clergy  occupying  the  monastery  of  St. 
Mary  in  his  cathedral  city.  Many  promises  they  made  to 
conform  to  his  wishes,  and  many  times  they  eluded  the  per- 
formance, till,  losing  patience  with  the  prolonged  procrasti- 
nation, he  one  day  entered  the  chapel  with  a  quantity  of 
monkish  habits  as  they  were  vigorously  chanting  "Servite 
Domino  in  timore,"  when  he  made  practical  application  of 
the  text  by  forcing  them  to  put  on  the  garments  and  take  the 
vows  on  the  spot,  under  the  alternative  of  instant  expulsion.4 

These  proceedings  met  the  unqualified  approbation  of  Ed- 
gar, who  in  964,  by  his  "Charter  of  Oswalde's  Law,"  confirmed 
the  ejection  of  the  recreants  who  refused  to  part  with  their 
wives,  and  transferred  all  their  rights  and  possessions  to  the 
newcomers.  In  the  same  document  he  boasted  that  he  had 
instituted  forty  seven  abbeys  of  monks  and  nuns,  and  that  he 
hoped  to  increase  the  number  to  fifty.5  The  same  year  a 
similar  summary  process  was  carried  out  in  the  convents  of 


1  Et  ideo  ut  divites  attraheret,  in- 
stituit  .  .  .  et  relaxavit  quae  non  sunt 
in  regula  S.  Benedicti. — Chron.  de 
Abbat.  Abbeudon.  loc.  cit. 

2  Vit.  S.  iEthelwold.  c.  14,  15. 


3  Joannis  PP.  XIII.  Epist.  xxii. 

4  Concil.  sub  Dunstano  (Spelnian. 
I.  480). 

5  JEdgari  Charta  de  Oswalde's  Law 
(Spelman.  I.  433). 


SECULAR  CLERGY  ASSAILED 


175 


Chertsey  and  Winchester  ;x  and  in  966  Edgar  was  able  to 
boast  of  the  numerous  religious  houses  throughout  England 
which  he  had  purified  by  replacing  lascivious  clerks  with 
pious  monks.2 

These  efforts,  however,  only  tended  to  restore  the  monastic 
foundations  to  their  original  position,  and  left  the  secular 
clergy  untouched,  except  in  so  far  as  a  few  of  them  were 
deprived  of  the  comfortable  quarters  which  they  had  usurped 
in  the  abbeys.  This  immunity  it  was  no  part  of  Dunstan's 
plan  to  permit,  and  accordingly  Edgar  issued  a  series  of  laws 
restoring  the  obsolete  ecclesiastical  discipline  throughout  his 
kingdom.  By  this  code  a  lapse  from  virtue  on  the  part  of  a 
priest  or  monk  was  visited  with  the  same  penalty  as  homicide, 
with  a  fast  of  ten  years ;  for  a  deacon  the  period  of  penitence 
was  seven  years ;  for  the  lower  grades,  six  years.  The  monk, 
priest,  or  deacon  who  maintained  relations  with  his  wife  was 
subjected  to  the  same  punishment;  but  there  is  no  mention  of 
degradation  or  deprivation  of  benefice.3 

The  struggle  was  long,  and  at  one  time  the  three  reformers 
seem  to  have  grown  wearied  with  the  stubborn  resistance 
which  they  met,  while  the  zeal  of  King  Edgar  grew  more 
fiery  as,  with  the  true  spirit  of  the  huntsman,  he  followed  up 
the  prey,  his  ardor  increasing  as  the  chase  grew  more  dim- 
cult.  In  969  he  eloquently  addressed  Dunstan,  Ethelwold, 
and  Oswald,  blaming  their  lukewarmness  in  the  good  cause, 
and  promising  them  every  support  and  assistance  in  removing 
this  opprobrium  from  the  church.4  Stimulated  by  these 
reproaches,  Dunstan  summoned  a  council  which  adopted  a 
canon  depriving  unchaste  priests  of  their  benefices.5  Still 
the  conflict  continued,  and  a  charter  dated  in  974,  the  last 
year  of  Edgar's  reign,  shows  that  he  persevered  to  the  end 
with  unabated  zeal.6 


The  contumacious  clerks  may  have  been  silenced ;  they 


1  Anglo-Saxon  Chron.  ann.  964. 

2  Monach.  Hydeus.  Leg.  c.  8, 9  (Spel- 
man.  I.  438). 

3  Canon,  sub  Edgaro — Mod.  hnpo- 


nend.  Pcenitent.  c.  28,  29  (Thorpe,  II. 
273). 

1  Oratio  Edgari  (Spelman,  I.  476). 

5  Spelman,  I.  479. 

6  Guillel.  Malmesbur.  Lib.  n.  c.  8. 


176 


SAXON    ENGLAND. 


were  not  subdued,  and  they  but  waited  their  opportunity. 
It  came  in  975,  with  the  early  death  of  Edgar  and  with  the 
dissensions  caused  by  his  widow,  Elfritha,  who  endeavored  to 
deprive  of  the  succession  his  eldest  son,  the  youthful  Edward, 
fruit  of  a  former  marriage.  During  the  confusion,  the  ejected 
priests  banded  together  and  bribed  Elf  here,  the  powerful 
Ealdorman  of  Mercia,  together  with  some  other  magnates, 
to  espouse  their  cause.  In  many  abbeys  the  regulars  were 
expelled  and  the  priests  with  their  wives  were  reinstated.  In 
East  Anglia,  however,  the  nobles  took  sides  with  the  monks, 
and,  rising  in  arms,  valiantly  defended  the  monasteries.  At 
length,  on  the  accession  of  Edward,  a  council  was  assembled 
to  make  final  disposition  of  the  question.  The  married 
priests  were  present,  and  promised  amendment ;  their  noble 
protectors  plead  earnestly  for  them ;  the  boy-king  was  moved, 
and  was  about  to  pronounce  in  their  favor,  when  a  miracle 
preserved  the  purity  of  the  church.  The  council  was  sitting 
in  the  refectory  of  the  monastery  of  Hyde,  the  headquarters 
of  the  ascetic  party;  Edward  and  Dunstan  were  enthroned 
separately  from  the  rest,  with  their  backs  to  a  wall  on  which, 
between  them,  hung  a  small  crucink.  At  the  critical  mo- 
ment, just  as  the  king  was  yielding  the  crucifix  spoke,  in  a 
low  tone  inaudible  to  all  save  Edward  and  the  primate,  "Let 
not  this  thing  be  done" — the  manfiate  was  imperative,  and 
the  married  clergy  lost  their  cause/1 

Still  the  stubborn  priests'  and  their  patrons  held  out,  and 
another  miracle  was  necessary — this  time  a  more  impressive 
one.  A  second  council  was  called  to  discuss  the  matter,  and 
was  held  at  Calne  in  978.  During  the  heat  of  the  argument 
the  floor  gave  way,  carrying  with  it  the  whole  assembly, 
except  St.  Dunstan,  who  remained  triumphantly  and  miracu- 
lously perched  upon  a  joist,  while  his  adversaries  lay  groan- 
ing below,   in  every  variety  of  mutilation.2     His  triumph, 


1  Florent.  Wigorn.  ami.  975. — Matt. 
Westmonast.  Lib.  hi.  c.  18. — Cliron. 
Winton.  (Spelman.  I.  490-2). 

2  Matt.  Westmonast.  Lib.  in.  c.  18. 
Henry  of  Huntingdon,  however  (Lib. 
v.  ami.  978),  who,  as  a  secular  priest 


and  the  son  of  a  priest,  did  not  look 
upon  the  labors  of  St.  Dunstan  with 
much  favor,  insinuates  that  the  acci- 
dent was  intended  to  foreshow  that 
the  assembled  wisdom  and  power  of 
England  were  about  to  fall  similarly 
from  the  grace  of  God. 


FAILURE   OF   DUNSTAN's    REFORMS.  177 

however,  was  but  short.  The  same  year  the  pious  child 
Edward  perished  through  the  intrigues  of  Elfritha,  whose 
son,  Ethelred  the  Unready,  succeeded  to  the  throne.  The 
mixed  political  and  religious  character  of  these  events  is 
shown  by  the  canonization  of  Edward,  who,  though  yet  a 
child,  was  regarded  as  a  martyr  by  the  church  whose  cause 
he  had  espoused. 

As  Elfritha  had  evidently  sought  the  alliance  of  the  secu- 
lar clergy  to  strengthen  her  party,  her  success  proved  disas- 
trous to  the  cause  of  reform.  The  respite  of  peace,  too, 
which  had  blessed  the  island  during  the  vigorous  reigns 
of  Athelstan  the  Magnificent  and  Edgar  the  Pacific,  gave 
place  to  the  ravages  invited  by  the  feeble  and  vacillating- 
policy  of  Ethelred  the  Unready;  the  incursions  of  the  pagan 
Danes  became  more  and  more  frequent  and  terrible;  and 
what  little  respect  had  been  inculcated  for  the  strictness  of 
discipline  was  speedily  forgotten  in  the  anarchy  which  ensued. 

How  thoroughly  the  work  of  Dunstan  and  Edgar  was 
undone  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  the  efforts  made  not  long- 
after,  with  the  consent  of  Ethelred,  to  introduce  some  feeble 
restraints  upon  the  prevailing  immorality.  About  the  year 
1006  we  find  the  chief  monastery  of  England,  Christ  Church 
at  Canterbury,  in  full  possession  of  the  secular  clergy,  whose 
irregularities  were  so  flagrant  that  even  Ethelred  was  forced 
to  expel  them,  and  to  fill  their  places  with  monks.1  What 
was  the  condition  of  discipline  among  the  secular  priests  may 
be  guessed  from  the  reformatory  efforts  of  St.  iElfric,  who 
was  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  from  995  to  1006.  In  his 
series  of  canons  the  first  eight  are  devoted  to  inculcating 
the  necessity  of  continence ;  after  quoting  the  Nicene  canon, 
he  feels  it  to  be  so  much  at  variance  with  the  habits  and 
customs  of  the  age,  that  he  actually  deprecates  the  surprise 
of  his  clergy  at  hearing  a  rule  so  novel  and  so  oppugnant 
to  the  received  practice,  "  as  though  there  was  no  danger  in 
priests  living  as  married  men;"  he  anticipates  the  arguments 
which  they  will  bring  against  him,  and  refutes  them  with 


1  Privileg.  Reg.  Ethelredi  (Spelmau  I.  504). 
12 


178  SAXON    ENGLAND. 

more  gravity  than  success.1  There  is  also  extant,  under 
the  name  of  St.  iElfric,  a  pastoral  epistle,  which  is  regarded 
as  supposititious  by  some  critics;  but  its  passages  on  this 
subject  are  too  similar  in  spirit  to  the  canons  of  iElfric  to  be 
reasonably  rejected.  They  show  how  hopeless  was  the  effort 
to  maintain  the  purity  desired  by  the  ecclesiastical  authori- 
ties, and  that  entreaties  and  exhortations  were  uttered  merely 
from  a  sense  of  duty,  and  with  hardly  an  expectation  of 
commanding  attention.  "  This,  to  you  priests,  will  seem 
grievous,  because  ye  have  your  misdeeds  in  custom,  so  that 
it  seems  to  yourselves  that  ye  have  no  sin  in  so  living  in 
female  intercourse  as  laymen;  and  say  that  Peter  the  Apostle 
had  a  wife  and  children.  .  .  .  Beloved,  we  cannot  now  forci- 
bly compel  you  to  chastity,  but  we  admonish  you,  neverthe- 
less, that  ye  observe  chastity,  so  as  Christ's  ministers  ought, 
in  good  reputation,  to  the  pleasure  of  God,  &c."2 

That  these  well-meant  homilies  effected  little  in  reforming 
the  hearts  of  so  obdurate  a  generation  becomes  manifest  by 
the  proceedings  of  the  council  of  Enham,  held  by  King 
Ethelred  in  1009.  The  priests  are  there  entreated,  by  the 
obedience  which  they  owe  to  God,  to  observe  the  chastity 
which  they  know  to  be  due.  Yet  so  great  was  the  laxity 
prevailing  that  some  are  stated  to  have  two  or  more  wives, 
and  many  to  be  in  the  habit  of  changing  their  spouses  at 
pleasure,  in  violation  of  all  Christian  law.  The  council  was 
apparently,  however,  powerless  to  repress  these  scandals  by 
any  adequate  punishment,  and  contented  itself  with  promising 
to  those  who  lived  chastely  the  privileges  and  legal  status  of 
nobles,  while  the  vicious  were  vaguely  threatened  with  the 
loss  of  the  grace  of  God  and  man.3 


1  iElfrici  Canon,  c.  i.-viii.  (Thorpe,  [  3  Omnes  ministros  Dei,  prsesertim 
II.  345).  "Quasi  pericnlosum  non  |  sacerdotes,  obsecramus  et  dooemus, 
esset  sacerdotem  vivere  more  conju-  ut  Deo  obedientes,  castitatem  colant, 
gati.  Seddicetiseumhaud posse carere  et  contra  iram  Domini  se  hoc  modo 
muliebribus  servitiis.  Respondeo,  muniant  et  tueantur.  Certius  enim 
quonam  pacto  vitam  transegerunt  norint  quod  non  habeant  debite  ob 
sancti  olim  viri  absque  fcemina  vel  aliquam  coitus  causam  uxoris  cou- 
uxore,"  &c.  (Spelman  I.  573). — Spel-  sortium.  In  more  tamen  est,  ut  qui- 
man's  MS.  was  defective ;  that  in  j  dam  duas,  quidam  plures  habeat ;  et 
Thorpe  is  perfect.  j  nonnullus    quamvis     earn     dimiserit 

,    7r,,„  .  ,     T-,     ,       i    t.  •  xi  on  !  quam  nuper  habuit,  aliam  tamen,  ipsa 

« ,^lfnC  V^T1   EpiStl6'  C'  3  '    vivente,    accipit,   quod   nulla    Chris- 
33  (Thorpe,  II.  377).  *    ' 


DISORDERS    OF    THE    PRIESTHOOD.  179 

The  injunctions  of  the  council  as  regards  the  regulars, 
though  not  particularly  specific  in  their  nature,  show  that 
even  the  monks  had  not  responded  to  the  benefits  conferred 
upon  them  by  Edgar  the  Pacific,  nor  fulfilled  the  expecta- 
tions of  the  pious  Dunstan.  An  expression  employed,  in- 
deed, leads  the  learned  Spelman  to  suggest  that  there  possi- 
bly were  two  orders  of  monks,  the  one  married  and  the  other 
unmarried;  but  this  is  probably  without  foundation.1 

Such  was  the  condition  of  the  church  when  the  increasing 
assaults  of  the  Northman  finally  culminated  in  overthrowing 
the  house  of  Cerdic,  and  placing  the  hated  Dane  upon  the 
throne  of  England.  Cnut's  long  and  prosperous  reign,  and 
his  earnest  veneration  for  the  church,  as  shown  by  his  pil- 
grimage to  Rome,  may  perhaps  have  succeeded  in  removing 
some  of  the  grosser  immoralities  of  the  clergy,  but  that  mar- 
riage was  still  openly  and  unrestrainedly  practised  by  those 
in  orders,  I  think  is  evident.  The  ecclesiastical  laws  of 
Cnut  exhort  priests  to  chastity  in  precisely  the  same  words, 
and  with  the  same  promises  as  the  canons  of  the  council  of 
Enham,  but  do  not  allude  to  the  habit  of  keeping  a  plurality 
of  wives ;  while,  in  the  same  chapter,  a  warning  to  the  whole 
people  against  unlawful  concubinage  would  seem  to  indicate 


tianorum  lege  est  permissum.    Diuiit-  the  church.     In  a  list  of  wehr-gilds, 

tens   autein  et  castitatem  recolens,  e  anterior  to  the  period  under  considera- 

coelo    assequetur    niisericordiam,    in  tion  by  about    a  century,  the  wehr- 

mundo    etiam  venerationem,  adeo  ut  gild  for  the  priest — "msesse-begnes"  is 

juribus    et  tributis   habeatur   Thaini  the  same  as  that  for  the  secular  noble 

dignus  cum    in  vita  turn   in    funere.  — "  woruld-hegnes"  (Thorpe,  I.  187). 

Qui  autem  ordinis  sui  regulam  abdi-  i      ,  ..„    «  , 

caverit,  omni   cum  apud   Deum  turn  i         "Muneoaa  and  mynecena  canom- 

apud  homines  gratia  exuatur.-Con-  eas  and   nunnan     (Concil     yEnham. 

Oil.  iEnham.  c.  2.  (Spelman.  I.  514-5).  I  c'  *>•     SPelman  ^inka  *hat  the  m^ 

t  „;™  +u~  +  «„«ii*: ~t  a     i™  necena   'were    perhaps    the  wives    or 

1  give  the  translation  of  bpelman,  ,.  „  *      *      ,„       -ittoan 

oo  -U  ;,,~   ™ f  -*\  e,  i   ;„  „   •  •*      i  concubines  of  monks  (Concil.  1.  530). 

as  being   more  iaithtul  in  spirit,  al-  ,,  .  .      ),       .      .  .       ' . 

♦i,«,, ,/i,     i^„    u«  ,  „i     +i +i  „I      *  Mynecen  is   merely   the   feminine  of 

though     less    literal     than     that    of       J  ,      nv, 

mi      °        -•       +1         -.     ,,  .  munuc,  a  monk;  Ihorpe  translates  it 

J  horpe      lor   though    the    expression  '     ,         ,,       •,  .,  7n 

"wifes  gemanan"  may  not    be  espe.  f '' myncdiens,'' and  suggests  that  the 

cially  limited  to  wifely  relations,  yet  "mynecena"  were  mere  y  the  younger 

.I,       i    i    x  e  a  I  nuns,  not  quite  so  strictly  governed  as 

the  whole  tenor  of  the  passage  shows  iT         ,       '  „     rv   s  .        .    . 

,,.,,_  i  i.  the  elder  '■nunnaii."     lothis  opinion 

that   the   women  concerned  were  not  -r,  ,,     /r..  ..  ^ 

i  ,  .  ,     ,  ,..,   j  Bosworth   (Dictionarv,    s.    v.    nunne) 

merely  concubines,  but  were  entitled  ...  rj/'      ,,  J 

.     .-,   J         . -,       ..         e  ,       ,  seems  to  incline,     it  would  appear  to 

to  the  consideration  ol  legal  wives.  ,  ,.  ,  ,,      \\ 

The  thane-right  promised  to  those  be  \°  ^"J  chapter  xv    (be  Mynece- 

who   should   reform  their  lives    was  n£?>°f  "*"* nat  ltutes   of  Pollty 

one    of   the    recognized   privileges    of  ^     *    ^  '     '         '' 


180  SAXON    ENGLAND 

that  clergy  and  laity  were  bound  by  rules  identical  in  strict- 
ness.1 

That  the  rule  of  celibacy  was  recognized  as  only  binding 
on  the  regulars,  or  monks,  and  that  the  secular  priesthood 
were  at  full  liberty  to  marry  is  evident  from  the  system  of 
purgation  enjoined  on  them  by  the  same  code.  The  priest, 
who  was  also  a  monk  (sacerdos  regulariter  vivens — sacerd  be 
regollice  libbe),  could  clear  himself  from  an  accusation  in  a 
simple  suit  by  merely  saying  mass,  and  taking  the  commu- 
nion, while  the  secular  priest  (plebeius  sacerdos — mresse- 
preorst  be  regol-lif  naabbe)  is  only  equal  to  the  deacon-monk 
(diaconus  regularis — diacon  J?e  regollice  libbe),  requiring  two 
of  his  peers  as  compurgators.2  The  significance  of  the  dis- 
tinction thus  drawn  is  rendered  clear  by  the  version  of  a 
curious  Latin  text  of  the  code  published  by  Kolderup- 
Eosenvinge.  The  chapter  is  divided  into  two,  the  first  one 
with  the  rubric  "De  Sacerdotibus,"  and  commencing  "Si 
contigerit  presbyterum  regulariter  et  caste  viventem,"  &c, 
while  the  second  is  headed  "De  vulgare  sacerdote  non  casto" 
the  meaning  of  which  is  denned  in  the  expression  "  Si  vul- 
garis presbyter  qui  non  regulariter  vivit."3  It  is  thus  evi- 
dent that  purity  was  expected  from  those  only  who  had 
entered  into  the  obligations  of  monastic  life,  and  also  that  the 
reforms  of  Dunstan  had  caused  the  ministers  of  the  altar  to 
be,  in  a  great  degree,  selected  from  among  the  monks. 

To  this  period  are  also,  in  all  probability,  to  be  attributed 
the  "  Institutes  of  Polity,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,"  to  which 


1  Cnutes  Domas  c.  vi.  (Thorpe,  I.  I  important    privileges   of    the   aristo- 

364).  i  cracy.     This    constitutes   the  thane- 

„  „  „  /rp,  T   !  right    alluded   to   in   the   council   of 

o„os      t  ■  ,C'  ,T"  (f  nOTPe'  ,  ;  :  Euliam,  and  retained  by  the  laws  of 

391\  2jg£?2£.  SUHM!  :  Cwt,  »  attaching  to  priests  who  pre- 

serve  their  chastity.  Thus,  "  sacra- 
mentum  presbyteri  regulariter  viven- 
tis  tantumdem  valeat  sicut  liberalis 
hominis"  (Cnuti  Leg.  Ssecul.  c.  128 — 
ed.  Kolderup-Rosenvinge)  —  the  ex- 
pression "  liberalis  homo"  being,  in 
this  version,  used  for  the  "taynus" 
or  thane  of  the  other  texts. 

3  Cnuti  Leg.  Eccles.  c.  8,  9.   (Kol- 
derup-Rosenvinge,  Haunise,  1826,  p. 


of  the  privileges  thus  distributed,  we 
should  bear  in  mind  how  completely, 
in  those  times,  the  various  classes  of 
society  were  distinguished  by  the 
facilities  afforded  them,  of  acquittal 
in  cases  of  accusation,  and  by  the 
graduated  scale  of  fines  established 
for  injuries  inflicted  on  them.  These 
were  most  substantial  advantages 
when  the  wehr-gild,  or  blood-money, 
was  the  only  safeguard  guaranteed  by 
law  for  life  and  limb,  and  were  most 


12). 


SACERDOTAL  MARRIAGE  ESTABLISHED.   181 

reference  lias  been  made  in  the  preceding  section  as  blaming 
priests  for  decorating  their  wives  with  the  ornaments  belong- 
ing to  their  churches.  Unable  to  denounce  efficient  penalties 
for  the  prevention  of  such  evil  practices,  the  author  is  obliged 
to  content  himself  with  invoking  future  punishment  from 
heaven,  in  vague  and  meaningless  threats — "  A  priest's  wife 
is  nothing  but  a  snare  of  the  devil,  and  he  who  is  ensnared 
thereby  on  to  his  end,  he  will  be  seized  fast  by  the  devil."1 

From  all  this  it  is  evident  that  the  memory  of  the  ancient 
canons  was  not  forgotten,  and  that  their  observance  was  still 
urged  by  some  ardent  churchmen,  but  that  the  customs  of  the 
period  had  rendered  them  virtually  obsolete,  and  that  no 
sufficient  means  existed  of  enforcing  obedience.  If  open 
scandals  and  shameless  bigamy  and  concubinage  could  be 
restrained,  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  were  evidently  con- 
tent. Celibacy  could  not  be  enjoined  as  a  law,  but  was 
rendered  attractive  by  surrounding  it  with  privileges  and 
immunities  denied  to  him  who  yielded  to  the  temptations  of 
the  flesh,  and  who  thus  in  some  degree  assimilated  his  sacred 
character  to  that  of  the  laity. 

The  Saxon  church  thus  was  utterly  regardless  of  the  rule 
of  celibacy  when  Edward  the  Confessor  ascended  the  throne. 
The  ascetic  piety  of  that  prince,  and  his  Norman  education 
alike  led  him  to  abhor  the  sensual  indulgences  in  which  he 
found  his  subjects  plunged,  and  he  attached  himself  almost 
exclusively  to  the  horde  of  Norman  monks  who  flocked  to 
his  court  from  across  the  channel.  Their  influence  was  all- 
powerful,  and  though  reasons  of  the  highest  state  necessity 
forced  him  to  ally  himself  in  marriage  with  Edith,  daughter 
of  the  puissant  Duke  Godwin,  whom  Edward  hated  with  all 
the  energy  of  his  feeble  nature,  it  was  not  difficult  for  his 
artful  ghostly  counsellors  to  persuade  him  that  a  vow  of  vir- 
ginity, taken  and  kept  amid  the  seductions  of  a  throne,  would 
insure  his  glory  in  this  world  and  his  salvation  in  the  next. 
A  minstrel  historian  describes  at  length  the  engagement  of 


1  Institutes  of  Polity,  &c,  c.  16,19,    cwene   are    used    interchangeably    to 
23  (Thorpe,  II.  325,  329,  337).     It  is    denote  the  consorts  of  priests, 
observable   that   the  words  wif  and  j 


182 


SAXON    ENGLAND. 


perpetual  chastity  entered  into  between  Edward  and  Edith  at 
their  marriage,  and  though  he  mentions  the  popular  derision 
to  which  this  exposed  the  royal  monk  at  the  hands  of  a  gross 
and  brutal  generation,  he  is  firmly  persuaded  that  the  crown 
of  martyrdom  was  worthily  won  and  worn — 

Par  veincre  charnel  desir, 
Bein  deit  estre  clamez  martir. 
Ne  sai  cunter  en  nul  estoire 
Rei  ki  feist  si  grant  victoire, 
Sa  char,  diable  e  mnnd  venqui, 
Ki  sont  troi  fort  enimi.1 

The  cold  temperament  of  Edward  might  control  •  his  own 
passions,  but  neither  his  example  nor  his  authority  was  suffi- 
cient to  effect  a  reform  among  his  sensual  aud  self-indulgent 
subjects.  That  he  made  efforts  to  that  end  cannot  reasonably 
be  doubted,  but  their  want  of  success  is  developed  in  the  de- 
scription of  the  Saxon  clergy  at  the  time  of  the  Conquest. 
The  Norman  chroniclers  speak  of  them  as  abandoned  to 
sloth,  ignorance,  and  the  lusts  of  the  flesh;  even  monastic 
institutions  were  matters  rather  •  of  tradition  than  of  actual 
existence,  and  the  monks  themselves  were  hardly  distinguish- 
able by  their  mode  of  life,  .from  -the  laity.2  There  doubtless 
may  be  some  contemptuous  exaggeration  in  this,  and  yet  one 
author  of  the  period,  who  -is.  wholly  Saxon  in  his  feelings, 


1  Lives  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  pp. 
60-1  (Chron.  &  Meraor.  of  Gr.  Brit.). 
In  the  same  cnrious  collection  there  is 
another  life  of  Edward  by  a  follower 
of  Queen  Edith  and  dedicated  to  her, 
the  writer  of  which  freely  attributes 
the  worst  motives  to  the  intrigues  of 
the  Norman  monks  in  separating  her 
from  the  king.  See,  for  instance,  his 
account  of  her  immurement  in  the 
abbey  of  Wilton  (Op.  cit.  p.  403). 

Edward's  virginity  is  likewise  at- 
tested by  the  MS.  Monast.  Ramesiens. 
(8pelman.  I.  637.)  "  Ccelibem  pudi- 
citise  florem,  quern  inter  regni  delicias 
et  inter  amplexus  conjugales  .  .  . 
conservarat,  virtutemque  perpetuo 
floribus  immiscuit  paradisi."  In  this, 
however,  Edward  only  imitated  the 
asceticism   ascribed  to   the   Emperor 


St.    Henry  II.  and   his   Empress   St. 
Cunegunda,  half  a  century  earlier. 

2  Hujuscemodi  dissolutio  clericos 
et  laicos  relaxaverat,  et  utrumque 
sexum  ad  omnem  lasciviam  inclina- 
verat.  Abundantia  cibi  et  potus  lux- 
uriem  nutriebat,  levitas  et  mollifies 
gentis  in  flagitium  quemquam  facile 
impellebat.  Destructis  monasteriis 
monastica  religio  debilitata  est,  et 
canonicus  rigor  usque  ad  Normanno- 
rum  tempora  reparatus  non  est.  Per 
longum  itaque  retro  tempus  transma- 
rinorum  monachatus  deciderat,  et 
parum  a  ssecularitate  conversatio  mo- 
nachorum  differebat. — Orderic.  Vital. 
P.  ii.  Lib.  iv.  c.  10. — The  testimony 
of  William  of  Malmesbury  (De  Grest. 
Regum  Lib.  in.)  is  equally  emphatic. 


EDWARD    THE    CONFESSOR. 


183 


does  not  hesitate  to  attribute  the  ruin  of  the  Saxon  monarchy 
and  the  devastation  of  the  kingdom  to  the  just  wrath  of  God, 
provoked  by  the  vices  of  the  clergy.1 

The  rule  of  the  Normans  removed  England  from  her  isola- 
tion. Brought  into  the  commonwealth  of  Christendom  and 
under  the  active  supremacy  of  the  Holy  See,  her  history 
henceforth  becomes  more  closely  connected  with  the  general 
ecclesiastical  movement  which  received  its  irresistible  im- 
pulsion about  this  period.  That  movement  it  is  now  our 
business  to  examine. 


Sub  ipsis  eniin  ferientis  Dei  ver-  i  turn    fieri   jamdudnm   demonstratum 


beribns,  ad  multa  milia  populus  ster 
nitur,  regnura  igne  et  depraedatione 

devastatur,  hocque   peccato  sacerdo- 


est. — Lives  of  Edward  the  Confessor, 
p.  432. 


J- I  BRA  u  . 

rN,v«K«FTT   OF 


XII. 
PETER  DAMIANI. 

In  a  previous  section  I  have  shown  the  laxity  prevailing 
throughout  Continental  Europe  at  the  commencement  of  the 
eleventh  century.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  however,  that 
even  where  this  was  tacitly  permitted,  it  was  openly  and  un- 
reservedly recognized.  The  perversity  of  a  sinful  generation 
might  render  impossible  the  enforcement  of  the  ancient 
canons;  they  might  even  be  forgotten  by  the  worldly  and 
unthinking ;  but  they  were  still  the  law  of  the  church,  and 
their  authority  was  still  admitted  by  some  ardent  devotees 
who  longed  to  restore  the  purity  of  earlier  ages.  Burckhardt, 
who  was  Bishop  of  Worms  from  the  year  1000  to  1025,  in  his 
voluminous  collection  of  canons,  gives  a  fair  selection  from 
the  councils  and  decretals  prohibiting  all  female  intercourse 
to  the  clergy.1  Benedict  VIII.  and  the  Emperor  St.  Henry  II. 
— whose  admiration  of  virginity  was  evinced  by  the  personal 
sacrifice  to  which  reference  has  just  been  made — in  1022  en- 
deavored in  the  most  solemn  manner  to  reform  the  universal 
laxity.  At  the  synod  of  Pavia  a  series  of  canons  was  adopted 
pronouncing  sentence  of  deposition  upon  all  priests,  deacons, 
and  subdeacons  having  wives  or  concubines,  and  upon  all 
bishops  keeping  women  near  them,  while  special  stress  was 
laid  upon  the  continued  servitude  of  the  children  of  all  such 
ecclesiastics  as  were  serfs  of  the  church.2  These  canons, 
signed  by  the  pope  and  attendant  bishops,  were  laid  before 
the  emperor,  who  indorsed  them  with  his  sanction,  declared 
them  to  be  municipal  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  law,  promised 
that  their  observance  should  be  enforced  by  the  civil  magis- 


1  Burcliardi  Decret.  Lib.  in.  c.  108- ;      l  Synod.  Ticinens.  arm.  1022,  c.  1, 
116.  |  2,  3,  4. 


t 

DEBASEMENT  OF  THE  PAPACY.       185 

trates,  and  thanked  Benedict  and  his  prelates  for  their  vigi- 
lance in  seeking  a  remedy  for  the  incontinence  of  the  clergy, 
the  evils  whereof  swept  like  a  storm  over  the  face  of  Chris- 
tendom.1 

In  France,  the  long  reign  of  Robert  the  Pious  seems  to 
have  been  marked  with  almost  entire  indifference  to  the  sub- 
ject, but  the  accession  of  his  son  Henry  I.  was  attended  with 
a  strenuous  effort  to  effect  a  reform.  The  council  of  Bourges, 
held  in  November,  1031,  but  four  months  after  the  death  of 
Robert,  may  perhaps  have  been  assembled  at  the  request  of 
the  dying  monarch,  desirous  of  redeeming  his  own  sins  with 
the  vicarious  penance  of  his  subjects.  It  addressed  itself 
vigorously  to  eradicating  the  evil  by  a  comprehensive  series 
of  measures,  admirably  adapted  to  the  end  in  view.  Priests, 
deacons,  and  subdeacons  were  forbidden  to  have  wives  or 
concubines,  and  all  such  consorts  were  ordered  to  be  dis- 
missed at  once  and  forever.  Those  who  refused  obedience 
were  to  be  degraded  to  the  rank  of  lectors  or  chanters,  and 
in  future  no  ecclesiastic  was  to  be  permitted  to  take  either 
wife  or  concubine.  A  vow  of  chastity  was  commanded  as  a 
necessary  prerequisite  to  assuming  the  subdiaconate,  and  no 
bishop  was  to  ordain  a  candidate  without  exacting  from  him 
a  promise  to  take  neither  wife  nor  concubine.  Children  of 
the  clergy  in  orders,  born  during  the  ministry  of  their  parents, 
were  pronounced  incapable  of  entering  the  church,  in  justifi- 
cation of  which  was  cited  the  provision  of  the  municipal  law 
which  incapacitated  illegitimates  from  receiving  inheritance 
or  bearing  witness  in  court;  but  those  who  were  born  after 
their  fathers  had  been  reduced  to  the  condition  of  laymen 
were  not  to  be  considered  as  the  children  of  ecclesiastics.2 

Nothing  could  be  more  reasonable  than  all  this,  considered 
from  the  high-church  stand-point,  and  nothing  more  admirably 
adapted  to  effect  the  object  in  view.  All  that  was  wanting  was 
the  enforcement  of  the  legislation — and  laws,  when  opposed  to 


Etaclericorumincontinentia,unde  l  toris  in  Synod.  Ticinens.  ann.  1022. 


omne  malum  velut  ab  aquilone  super 
terram  emersit,  correctionis  vigilanter 
fecit  principium. — Respons.    Impera- 


2  Concil.  Bituricens.  ann.  1031,  c.  5, 
6,  8,  10. 


186  PETER    D  AMI  AN  I. 

the  spirit  of  the  age,  are  not  apt  to  be  enforced.  How  much 
was  really  gained  by  the  united  efforts  of  the  pope,  the  em- 
peror, and  the  Gallican  hierarchy  can  readily  be  gathered  from 
a  few  out  of  innumerable  incidents  afforded  by  the  history  of 
the  period. 

The  able  and  energetic,  though  unscrupulous,  Benedict 
VIII.  was  no  more,  and  the  great  House  of  Tusculum,  which 
ruled  the  Eternal  City,  had  filled  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  with 
a  worthless  scion  of  their  stock,  as  though  to  declare  their 
contempt  for  the  lofty  pretensions  of  the  Apostolic  Episcopate. 
A  fit  descendant  of  the  infamous  Marozia  and  Alberic,  Bene- 
dict IX.,  a  child  of  ten  years  old  at  the  time  of  his  eleva- 
tion in  1032,  grew  up  in  unrestrained  license,  and  shocked 
even  the  dull  sensibilities  of  a  gross  and  barbarous  age  by 
the  scandals  of  his  daily  life.1  The  popular  appreciation  of 
his  character  is  shown  by  the  legend  of  his  appearing  after 
death  to  a  holy  man,  in  the  figure  of  a  bear,  with  the  ears  and 
tail  of  an  ass,  and  declaring  that,  as  he  had  lived  in  bestiality, 
so  he  was  destined  to  wear  the  form  of  a  beast  and  to  suffer 
fiery  torments  until  the  Day  of  Judgment,  after  which  he  was 
to  be  plunged,  body  and  soul,  into  the  fathomless  pit  of  hell.2 
When  the  Vicegerent  of  God,  the  head  of  the  Christian 
church,  was  thus  utterly  depraved,  the  prospect  of  reforming 
the  corruption  of  the  clergy  was  not  promising,  and  the  good 
work  was  not  likely  to  be  prosecuted  with  vigor. 

Nor  were  the  members  of  the  hierarchy  unworthy  of  their 
superior.  We  hear  of  Eainbaldo,  Bishop  of  Fiesole,  who,  not 
contented  with  numerous  concubines,  had  publicly  married  a 
wife,  and  Avhose  children  were  established  as  a  wide-spread 
and  powerful  family — and,  what  is  perhaps  more  remarkable, 
this  dissolute  prelate  was  gifted  with  the  power  of  working 
miracles.3     The  bishops,   indeed,   at  this  period,  were  still 


1  Quoniam  infelicem  habuit  introi- 1      3  Fesulanus  episcopus,  Rainibaldus 
turn,  infeliciorem    persensit    exitum.  J  nomine  .  .   .  quod  prseter  alias  unam 
Horrendum  quippe    referri  turpitudo 
illius    conversations    et    vitse. — Rad. 
Glabri  Lib.  v.  e.  5. 

8  Johann.  Chron.  Anglise,  c.  47 
(Ludewig  Rel.  Msctorum.  XII.  145). 
Semper  enim  luxurise  et  carnalibus 
illecebris  deditus  fuit. 


habebat,  publice  ac  familiarius  adbse- 
rentem,  et  tanquam  legitime  despon- 
sationis  uxorem,  quorum  filii  et  filije 
adhuc  plures  exstant,  et  foederati  con- 
jugio,  et  sucerescentibus  liberis  cumu- 
lati. — P.  Damiani  Opusc.  vi.  c.  18. 


LICENSE    ASSUMED    BY    THE    CLERGY.  187 

rather  warrior  nobles  than  Christian  ministers.  Bisantio,  the 
good  Bishop  of  Bari,  is  praised  quite  as  much  for  his  terrible 
prowess  in  battle  as  for  his  pious  benevolence  and  munifi- 
cence ;  and  on  his  death,  in  1035,  his  flock  chose  a  military 
official  as  his  successor.1 

Descending  in  the  scale,  we  may  instance  the  priest  Ma- 
rino, who,  though  he  lived  openly  with  his  wife,  was  a  noted 
miracle- worker.  Among  quaint  wonders  wrought  by  him  it 
is  recorded  that  water  rendered  holy  by  his  blessing,  when 
sprinkled  over  the  cornfields,  had  the  power  of  driving  away 
all  caterpillars  and  other  noxious  insects.  His  child,  Eleu- 
chadio,  was  a  most  venerable  man,  who  subsequently,  as 
abbot  of  the  monastery  of  the  Virgin  at  Fiano,  won  the 
esteem  and  respect  of  even  the  stern  Damiani  himself.2  In 
fact,  the  pious  Desiderius,  Abbot  of  Monte  Casino,  better 
known  as  pope  under  the  name  of  Victor  III.,  declares  that 
throughout  Italy,  under  the  pontificate  of  Benedict,  all  or- 
ders', from  bishops  down,  without  shame  or  concealment, 
were  publicly  married  and  lived  with  their  wives  as  laymen, 
leaving  their  children  fully  provided  for  in  their  wills;  and 
what  rendered  the  disgrace  more  poignant  was  the  fact  that 
the  scandal  was  greatest  in  Eome  itself,  whence  the  light  of 
religion  and  discipline  had  formerly  illumined  the  Christian 
world.3  Another  contemporary  writer  asserts  that  this  laxity 
prevailed  throughout  the  whole  of  Latin  Christendom,  sacer- 


1  Piissimus  pater  orfanorum  et  fun- j  Itaque  cum  vulgus  clericorum,  per 
dator  sanctoe  ecclesise  Barensis,  et  j  viam  effrenatse  licentise,  nemine  pro- 
cunctse  urbis  custos  ac  defensor,  atque  J  hibente,  graderetur,  coeperunt  ipsi 
terribilis  et  sine  metu  contra  omnes  :  presbyteri  ac  diacones  (qui  tradita 
Grsecos.  Et  electus  est  in  ipso  epis-  sibi  sacramenta  Dominica,  mundo 
copatu  ab  omni  populo  Romualt  pro-  :  corde  castoque  corpore,  tractare  debe#- 
tbospatbarius. — Anual.Barenses,ann.  :  bant)  laicorum  more  uxores  ducere, 
1035.  susceptosque     filios     hseredes     testa- 


Shortly  after  this,  we  hear  of  two 
bishops  killed  in  battle  (Ibid.  ann. 
1041). 

2  P.  Damiani,  loc.  cit. 

3  Dum  igitur  negligentia  sacerdo- 
tum,  maxime  Romanorum  pontiticum, 


mento  relinquere :  nonnulli  etiam 
episcoporum,  verecundia  omni  con- 
tempta,  cum  uxoribus  domo  simul  in 
una  habitare  :  et  hsec  pessima  et 
exsecranda  consuetudo  intra  Urbem 
maxime  pullulabat,  undo  olim  reli- 
gionis  norma  ab  ipso  Apostolo  Petro, 


Italia,  a  recto  religionis  tramite  paula-  j  ejusque  successoribus,  ubique  diffusa, 
tim  devians,  labefactaretur,  in  tantum    processerat. — Desiderii  Dialog,  de  Mi- 
mala  consuetudo  adolevit,  ut    sacrse    rac.  S.  Benedict.  Lib.  in.  (Script.  Rer. 
legis    auctoritate    postposita,    divina    Italicor.  V.  396). 
humanaque    omnia  miscereutur.    .    . 


188  PETER    DAMIANI. 

dotal  marriage  being  everywhere  so  common  that  it  was  no 
longer  punished  as  unlawful,  and  scarcely  even  reprehended.1 

In  becoming  thus  universal  and  tacitly  permitted,  it  was 
not  incompatible  with  the  most  fervent  piety ;  and  though  it 
may  be  an  evidence  of.  hierarchical  disorganization,  it  can  no 
longer  be  considered  as  indicating  of  itself  a  lowered  standard 
of  morals  in  the  ministers  of  the  church.  This  is  forcibly 
illustrated  in  the  case  of  St.  Procopius,  selected  by  Duke 
Ulric  of  Bohemia  as  the  first  abbot  of  the  monastery  of 
Zagow.  He  was  regularly  bred  to  the  church  under  the  care 
of  Bishop  Quirillus,  and  was  noted  for  the  rectitude  of  his 
deportment  in  the  priesthood;  yet  we  learn  that  he  was 
married  during  this  period,  when  we  are  told  that,  on  being 
disgusted  with  the  hollow  vanities  of  the  world,  he  abandoned 
wife  and  friends  for  the  solitude  of  a  hermit's  cave.  Here  an 
accidental  meeting  with  Duke  Ulric,  while  hunting,  led  to  the 
foundation  of  Zagow  and  to  the  installation  of  Procopius  as 
its  head.2 

Silently  the  church  seemed  to  acquiesce  in  the  violation  of 
her  canons,  until,  at  length,  she  appeared  content  if  her  min- 
isters would  satisfy  themselves  with  reputable  marriage  and 
avoid  the  grosser  scandals.  When  Ulric,  Abbot  of  Tegernsee, 
about  1041,  deplored  the  evil  influence  of  a  priest  who  had 
two  wives  living,  he  seems  to  have  felt  that  lawful  marriage 
might  be  tolerated,  but  that  polygamy  was  of  evil  example 
in  a  Christian  pastor.3  So  when  Albert  the  Magnificent, 
Archbishop  of  Hamburg,  was  accustomed  to  exhort  his  clergy 
to  continence  and  to  shun  the  pestiferous  society  of  women, 
his  worldly  wisdom  prompted  him  to  add  that,  if  they  were 


1  John,  a  disciple  of  St.  Peter  Da-  !  contempsit,et  domnm  uxor emqne,&gro*, 
miani,  in  alluding  to  the  prevailing  cognatos  atque  amicos,  immo  seme- 
twin  vices  of  simony  and  marriage,  tipsum  sibi  abnegans  .  .  .  secreta 
says:  "Quae  videlicet  pestes  tarn  per-  solitudinis  petiit. — Cosmse  Pragens. 
niciosa  consuetudine  prsevaluerant,  Chron.  Boem.  Lib.  in.  (Mencken, 
tamque  impune   totam   ferme   eccle-    Script.  Rer.  German.  III.  p.  1782). 

siam  in  omni  Romano  orbe  fcedave-        -  ~      ,  ,, 

,  .  3  Quod  vero  uxore  sua  adhuc  vi- 

rant,  ut  vix  lam  reprehensorem,  tarn-  I         , ,.         ,  .         .     , 

'   „  ,.     i        .,r       ,  ,,     ,t.,    c   r,   ,  vente   aham  duxit,  quantum   In  hoc 
quam  licite,  formidarent." — Vit.  8.  P.  ,  ...        -..'  H    ,     . 

•?.       .      .      \a  I  populum  sibi  creditum  destruxit,  nos- 

Daniiani,  c.  16.  !  f  r ,.     .  ,        ...       ,.        '       . 

tra  licet  super  hoc  intimatio  taceret, 

2  In  seculo  presbyter  eximius,  ho-  vestrse  tamen  prudentise  id  perscru- 
nesta  vitaa  et  casta  mysteria  celebrans  !  tanti  non  lateret. — Batthyani,  Leg. 
.  .  .  vanitatem  nequam  hujus  mundi  |  Eccles.  Hung.  I.  335. 


DEMORALIZATION   OF    THE   AGE.  189 

unequal  to  the  effort,  they  should  at  least  keep  unsullied  the 
bonds  of  marriage.1 

If  irregularities  such  as  these  existed,  they  are  not  justly 
imputable  to  the  church  itself.  It  can  scarcely  be  a  matter  of 
wonder  if  the  clergy,  in  assimilating  themselves  to  the  laity 
as  regards  the  liberty  of  wedlock,  should  also  have  adopted 
the  license  which  in  that  lawless  age  rendered  the  marriage 
tie  a  slender  protection  for  the  weakness  of  woman.  Though 
it  was  indissoluble  according  to  the  teachings  of  religion,  yet 
the  church,  which  at  that  time  was  the  only  protector  of  the 
feeble  against  the  strong,  had  not  acquired  the  command- 
ing authority  which  subsequently  enabled  it  to  enforce  its 
decrees  everywhere  and  on  all  occasions.  If,  under  a  vigor- 
ous pope,  the  sentence  of  excommunication  had  been  able  to 
frighten  a  superstitious  monarch  like  Eobert  the  Pious,  yet 
the  pontiffs  of  the  House  of  Tusculum  were  not  men  to 
trouble  themselves,  or  to  be  successful  had  they  made  the 
attempt,  to  rectify  the  wrongs  perpetrated  in  every  obscure 
baronial  castle  or  petty  hamlet  in  Europe.  The  isolation  and 
independence  of  the  feudal  system  made  every  freeman,  so 
to  speak,  the  arbiter  of  his  own  actions.  The  wife  whose 
charms  ceased  to  gratify  the  senses  of  her  husband,  or  whose 
temper  threatened  to  disturb  his  equanimity,  stood  little 
chance  of  retaining  her  position,  if  an  opportunity  offered  of 
replacing  her  to  advantage,  unless  she  was  fortunate  in  having 
kindred  able  to  resent  the  wrong  which  the  church  and  the 
law  were  powerless  to  prevent  or  to  punish.2  If,  then,  the 
clergy  occasionally  indulged  in  similar  practices,  the  evil  is 


1  Audivimus  sjepenumero  piissi- 1  tion  of  the  morals  and  manners  of  the 
mum  archiepiscopum  nostrum  Adal-  age  as  can  well  be  given  is  afforded 
bertum  cum  de  continentia  tenenda  by  a  deed  executed  in  1055  by  a  noble 
suos  hortatus  est  clericos  "Admoneo  j  count  of  Catalonia  on  the  occasion  of 


vos"  inquit  "  et  postulans  jubeo  ut 
pestiferis  mulierum  vinculis  absol- 
vamini,  aut  si  ad  hoc  non  potestis 
cogi,  quod  perfectorum  est,  saltern  cum 
verecundia  vinculum  matrimonii  cus- 
todite,  secundum  illud  quod  dicitur : 


his  marriage.  He  pledges  himself  not 
to  cast  off  his  bride,  except  for  infi- 
delity—such infidelity  not  being  plot- 
ted for  by  him— and  to  secure  the 
performance  of  this  promise  he  places 
in  the  hands  of  his  father-in-law  four 


Si  non  caste,  tamen  caute."— Adam,  j  castles,  to  be  held  in  pledge,  subject 
Bremens.  Gest.  Pontif.  Hammaburg.  to  forfeiture  in  case  of  his  violating 
Schol.  ad  cap.  29  Lib.  in.  the  agreement.  (Baluz  Capit.  Francor. 

Append.  Actor.  Vet.  No.  148.) 
2  Perhaps  as  suggestive  an  lllustra- 1 


190  PETER    DAM  I  ANI. 

not  attributable  to  the  license  of  marriage  which  they  had 
usurped.  That  license  had,  at  all  events,  borne  some  fruits 
of  good;  for,  during  its  existence,  we  hear  somewhat  less  of 
the  system  of  concubinage  so  prevalent  before  and  after  this 
period,  and  there  is  no  authentic  indication  of  the  nameless 
horrors  so  suggestively  intimated  by  the  restrictions  on  the 
residence  of  relatives  enjoined  in  the  frequent  canons  pro- 
mulgated at  the  close  of  the  ninth  century. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  race  of  ascetics 
was  extinct.  Amid  the  license  which  prevailed  in  every 
class,  there  were  still  some  men  who,  disgusted  with  the 
turbulent  and  dissolute  world,  despairing  of  salvation  among 
the  temptations  and  trials  of  active  life,  or  the  sloth  and 
luxury  of  the  monastic  establishments,  sought  the  path  to 
heaven  in  solitude  and  maceration.  Such  men  could  not  but 
look  with  detestation  on  the  worldly  priests  who  divided 
their  thoughts  between  their  sacred  calling  and  the  cares  of 
an  increasing  household,  and  who  profaned  the  unutterable 
mysteries  of  the  altar  with  hearts  and  hands  not  kept  pure 
from  the  lusts  of  the  flesh. 

Prominent  among  these  holy  anchorites  was  S.  Giovanni 
Gualberto,  who  fled  from  the  snares  of  the  world  to  the  forests 
of  Camaldoli,  where  his  austerities,  his  holiness,  and  his  mi- 
racles soon  attracted  crowds  of  disciples,  who  formed  a  nume- 
rous community  of  humble  imitators  of  his  virtues.  Eestoring 
in  its  strictness  the  neglected  Rule  of  Benedict,  his  example 
and  his  teaching  wrought  conviction,  and  the  order  of  monks 
wThich  he  founded  and  carried  with  him  to  the  peaceful  shades 
of  Vallombrosa  became  renowned  for  its  sanctity  and  purity. 
Thus  withdrawn  by  the  will  of  heaven  from  the  selfish  egot- 
ism of  a  hermit's  existence,  he  labored  earnestly  to  reform 
the  laxity  of  priestly  life  in  general,  and  his  success  was  most 
encouraging.  Moved  by  his  admonitions,  self-indulgent  clerks 
abandoned  wives  and  mistresses,  devoted  themselves  to  the 
performance  of  their  sacred  functions,  or  sought  in  monastic 
seclusion  to  make  atonement  for  their  past  excesses.1 


1  Exemplo  vero  ipsius  et  admoni-  in  ecclesiis  stare  et  communem  ducere 
tionibus,  delicati  clerici,  spretis  con-  vitam. — Atton.  Vit.  S.  Joharmis 
nubiis  et  concubinis,  coeperunt  simul    Gualbert.  c.  31. 


THREE    RIVAL    POPES  191 

Though  it  may  well  be  supposed  that  Gualberto  was  not 
unassisted  in  his  efforts,  yet  all  such  individual  exertions, 
dependent  upon  persuasion  alone,  could  be  but  limited  in 
their  influence  and  temporary  in  their  results.  Eeform,  to  be 
universal  and  permanent,  required  to  be  authoritative  in  its 
character  and  to  proceed  from  above  downwards.  The  papacy 
itself  must  cease  to  be  a  scandal  to  Christendom,  and  must 
be  prepared  to  wield  the  awful  force  of  its  authority,  seconded 
by  the  moral  weight  of  its  example,  before  disorders  so  firmly 
rooted  could  be  attacked  with  any  hope  of  success.  In  1044, 
Benedict  IX.  was  driven  out  of  Eome  by  a  faction  of  rebels 
or  patriots,  who  elected  Sylvester  III.  as  pontiff  in  his  place. 
A  sudden  revulsion  sent  Sylvester  into  exile,  and  brought 
Benedict  back,  who,  to  complete  the  confusion,  sold  the  papal 
dignity  to  a  new  aspirant,  known  as  Gregorj^  YI.  The  trans- 
action was  not  one  which  could  decently  be  recognized  by 
the  church,  and  Benedict  was  held  incapable  of  thus  trans- 
ferring the  allegiance  of  Christendom  or  of  depriving  himself 
of  his  position.  There  were  thus  three  popes,  whose  con- 
flicting claims  to  reverence  threw  all  Europe  into  the  doubt 
and  danger  of  schism,  nor  could  the  knotty  question  be  solved 
by  the  power  of  distracted  Italy.  A  more  potent  judge  was 
required,  and  the  decision  was  referred,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
to  the  sagacious  and  energetic  Emperor,  Henry  the  Black, 
whose  success  in  repressing  the  turbulence  of  the  empire, 
and  whose  sincere  reverence  for  the  church  gave  reasonable 
promise  of  a  happy  solution  of  the  tangled  problem.1  His 
proceeding  was  summary.  The  three  competitors  were  un- 
ceremoniously dismissed,  and  Henry  filled  the  vacancy  thus 
created  by  the  appointment  of  Suidger,  Bishop  of  Bamberg, 
who  assumed  the  name  of  Clement  II. 

Henry  III.  was  moved  by  a  profound  conviction  that  a 
thorough  and  searching  reform  was  vitally  necessary  to  the 
church.     The  conscientious  severity  of  his  character  led  him 


1  The  popular  feelings  which  greet-        The  invitation  to  interfere,  however, 

ed  his  interposition  are  well  conveyed    was  not  needed.     Henry's  prerogative 

in  the  jingling  verse  addressed  to  him    as  the  representative  of  Charlemagne 

by  a  holy  hermit —  ;  and    Otho   the    Great   was    sufficient 

Una  Sunamitis  nupsit  tribus  maritis ;         '■  warrant,  and    his    religious  ardor  an 

Rex  Henrice,  Omnipotentis  vice,  ample    motive,  without   any   special 

Solve  connubium,  triforme,  dubium.  reference  to  his  tribunal. 

(Annalista  Saxo,  ann.  1046.) 


192  PETER    DAMIANI. 

to  have  little  toleration  for  the  abuses  and  disorders  which 
were  everywhere  so  painfully  apparent.  How  far  his  views 
were  in  advance  of  those  generally  entertained,  even  by 
ecclesiastical  dignitaries,  was  clearly  manifested  as  early  as 
104:2,  when  Gebhardt,  Bishop  of  Eatisbon,  urged  the  claims 
of  his  favorite  arch-priest  Cuno  for  the  vacant  see  of 
Eichstett.  Henry  refused  on  the  ground  that  Cuno  was  the 
son  of  a  priest,  and  therefore  by  the  established  canons  in- 
eligible to  the  position.  The  reason,  though  unanswerable, 
was  so  novel  that  Gebhardt  refused  to  accept  it  as  the  true 
one,  and  Henry,  to  pacify  him,  promised  to  nominate  any  other 
one  of  the  Eatisbon  clergy  whom  Gebhardt  might  select. 
The  choice  fell  upon  a  young  and  unknown  man,  also  named 
Gebhardt,  whose  abilities,  brought  into  notice  thus  accident- 
ally, rendered  him  afterwards  more  conspicuous  as  Pope 
Victor  II.1 

Henry  did  not  neglect  the  opportunity  now  afforded  him 
of  carrying  into  effect  his  reformatory  views,  and  in  his  selec- 
tion of  a  pontiff  he  was  apparently  influenced  by  the  con- 
viction that  the  Italian  clergy  were  too  hopelessly  corrupt  for 
him  to  expect  from  them  assistance  in  -his  »»plans.  Clement 
exchanged  with  him  promises  of  mutual  support  in  the  ardu- 
ous undertaking.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  most 
crying  evil ;  the  one  first  vigorously  attacked,  and  the  one 
which  was  productive  of  the  greatest  real  detriment  to  the 
church — simony.  That  was  everywhere  open  and  avowed. 
From  the  blessing  of  the  priest  to  the  nomination  for  a  pri- 
macy, every  ecclesiastical  act  was  the  subject  of  bargain  and 
sale,  reduced  in  many  places  to  a  regular  scale  of  prices.2  To 
remove  this  scandal,  Clement  set  vigorously  to  work,  and 
soon  found  an  united  opposition  which  promised  little  for  the 
success  of  the  undertaking.  He  was  doubtless  sincere,  but 
he  was  clearly  alone  in  his  struggle  with  the  fierce  Italian 


1  Anon,  de  Episcop.  Eichstett.  c 
34  (Patrolog.  T.  146,  pp.  1021-2). 

2  It  would  be  a  work  of  superero 
gation  to  quote  the  innumerable  evi- 
dences of  this  which  crowd  the  pages 


"  Omnes  quippe  gradus  ecclesiastici 
a  maximo  pontifice  usque  ad  hostia- 
num  opprimuntur  per  suse  damnati- 
onis  precium,  ac  juxta  vocem  Domi- 
nicain  in  cunctis  grassatur  spiritale 

";mo7'  ~"vw„u^j  ,gOT    latrociniurn."— Glab.   Rodolph.   Hist. 

of  contemporary  writers.     Ihe  gene-    ,  .,  ,-  r 

ralizing  remark  of  Glaber  will  suffice — I        '  v'  c'     ' 


HIS    EARLY    CAREER.  193 

prelates,  who  were  resolved  not  to  abandon  the  emoluments 
and  indulgences  to  which  they  had  grown  accustomed,  and 
the  result  of  his  efforts  did  not  fulfil  the  expectations  of  the 
more  Sanguine  aspirants  for  the  purification  of  the  church. 
Even  his  patron  the  emperor  appears  to  have  doubted  his 
earnestness  in  the  cause,  for  we  find  Henry  not  only  address- 
ing him  a  letter  urging  him  to  fresh  exertion,  but  intrusting 
it  to  Peter  Damiani,  with  a  command  to  present  it  in  person, 
and  to  use  all  his  powers  of  exhortation  to  stimulate  the 
flagging  zeal  of  the  pope.  Damiani  refused  to  leave  his 
hermitage  even  at  the  imperial  mandate,  but  he  inclosed  the 
missive  in  one  of  his  own,  deploring  the  unhealed  wounds  of 
the  church,  recapitulating  the  shortcomings  of  Clement,  and 
goading  him  to  fresh  efforts,  in  a  style  which  savored  little  of 
the  reverence  due  to  the  Vicegerent  of  God.1  The  pontifical 
crown  was  evidently  not  a  wreath  of  roses.  Clement  sank 
under  its  weight,  and  died  October  9th,  1047,  in  less  than  ten 
months  after  he  had  accepted  the  perilous  dignity. 

* 
St.  Peter  Damiani,  who  thus  introduces  himself  to  our 
notice,  was  one  of  the  remarkable  men  of  the  epoch.  Born 
about  the  year  988  at  Eavenna,  of  a  noble  but  decayed  family, 
and  the  last  of  a  numerous  progeny,  he  owed  his  life  to  "a 
woman  of  the  very  class,  to  the  extirpation  of  which  he  de- 
voted all  the  energies  of  his  prime.  His  mother,  worn  out 
in  the  struggle  with  poverty,  regarded  his  birth  with  aversion, 
refused  to  suckle  the  infant  saint,  and  neglected  him  until  his 
forlorn  and  emaciated  condition  awoke  the  compassion  of  a 
female  retainer,  the  wife  of  a  priest,  who  remonstrated  with 
the  unfeeling  parent  until  she  succeeded  in  arousing  the  sense 
of  duty  and  restored  to  existence  the  little  sufferer,  who  was 
destined  to  bring  unnumbered  woes  to  all  who  were  of  her 
condition.2  His  early  years  are  said  to  have  been  passed  as 
a  swineherd,  till  the  opportunity  for  instruction  offered  itself, 
which  he  eagerly  embraced.  Retiring  at  length  from  the 
world,  he  joined  the  disciples  of  St.  Eomuald,  who  practised 
the  strictest   monastic  life,   either  as  monks  or  hermits  at 

1  Damiani  Epist.  3,  Lib.  vm.  |      z  Johannis  Vit.  B.  P.  Damiani  c.  1. 

13 


194 


PETER    DAMIANI 


Avellana,  near  Agubio.  Immuring  himself  there  in  the 
desert,  his  austerities  soon  gained  for  him  the  reputation  of 
pre-eminent  sanctity,  and  led  to  his  election  as  prior  of  the 
brotherhood.  Gifted  by  nature  with  an  intellect  of  unusual 
strength,  informed  with  all  the  learning  of  the  day,  his  stern 
asceticism,  his  dauntless  spirit,  and  the  uncompromising  force 
of  his  zeal  brought  him  into  notice  and  marked  him-  as  a 
fitting  instrument  in  the  cause  of  reform.  Occasionally,  at  the 
call  of  his  superiors,  he  left  his  beloved  retreat  to  do  battle 
with  the  hosts  of  evil,  returning  with  renewed  zest,  to  the 
charms  of  solitude,  until,  in  1057,  Stephen  IX.  forced  him  to 
accept  the  cardinalate  and  bishopric  of  Ostia — the  highest 
dignity  in  the  Eoman  court.  The  duties  of  his  episcopate, 
however,  conflicted  with  his  monastic  fervor,  and  after  a  few 
years  he  rendered  up  the  pastoral  ring  and  staff  and  again 
returned  to  Avellana,  where  he  died  in  1072,  full  of  years  and 
honors.  His  position  and  authority  can  best  be  estimated 
from  the  terms  employed  by  Alexander  II.,  who,  when  send- 
ing him  on  an  important  mission  to  France,  described  him  as 
next  in  influence  to  himself  in  the  Eoman  church,  and  the 
chief  support  of  the  Holy  See.1 

With  a  nature  ardent  and  combatant,  worked  up  to  the 
highest  pitch  of  ascetic  intolerance  by  the  introspective 
musings  of  his  cell,  it  may  readily  be  conceived  that  the  cor- 
ruptions of  the  church  filled  him  with  the  warmest  indignation 
and  the  fiercest  desire  to  restore  it  to  its  pristine  purity.  To 
this  holy  cause  he  devoted  the  last  half  of  his  life,  and  was 
always  ready,  with  tongue  and  pen,  at  the  sacrifice  of  his 
dearly  prized  solitude,  to  further  the  great  movement  on 
which  he  felt  that  the  future  of  Christianity  depended.  The 
brief  hopes  excited  by  the  promises  of  Clement  and  Henry 
were  speedily  quenched  by  the  untimely  death  of  the  German 
pontiff,  and  the  most  sanguine  might  well  despair  at  seeing 
the  odious  Benedict  IX.  reinstated  as  pope.  But  the  emperor 
was  in  earnest,  and  listened  willingly  to  the  cry  of  those  who 


1  Talem  vobis  virum  destinare  cura- 
vimus  quo  nimirum  post  nos  major  in 
Romana  ecclesia  auctoritas  non  lia- 
betur,   Petrum  videlicet   Damianum, 


Ostiensem  episcopnm,  qui  nimirum 
et  noster  est  oculus  et  apostolicse  sedes 
immobile  firmamentum.  —  Alex.  II. 
Epist.  15. 


LEO   IX.    AND   DAMIANI. 


195 


besought  him  not  to  leave  his  good  work  unfinished.  Nine 
brief  months  saw  Benedict  again  a  wanderer,  and  another 
German  prelate  installed  in  his  place.  Poppo  of  Brixen, 
however,  enjoyed  his  new  dignity,  as  Damasus  II.,  but  twenty- 
one  days,  when  he  fell  a  martyr  to  the  cause,  perishing 
miserably,  either  through  the  insalubrious  heats  of  a  Eoman 
summer,  or  the  hidden  vindictiveness  of  Italian  party  rage. 
It  required  some  courage  to  accept  the  honorable  but  fatal 
post,  and  six  months  elapsed  ere  a  worthy  candidate  could  be 
found.  Henry's  choice  this  time  fell  upon  Bruno  of  Toul,  a 
prelate  to  whom  admiring  biographers  ascribe  every  virtue 
and  every  qualification.  As  Leo  IX.  he  ascended  the  pon- 
tifical throne  in  February,  1049,  and  he  soon  gave  ample  evi- 
dence of  the  sincerity  with  which  he  intended  to  carry  out 
the  views  of  the  puritans  whom  he  represented. 

It  was  significant  that  he  took  with  him  to  Eome  the  monk 
Hildebrand,  lately  released  from  the  service  of  his  master 
Gregory  VI.,  who  had  died  in  his  German  exile,  restored  by 
a  miracle  at  his  death  to  the  honors  of  which  he  had  been 
adjudged  unworthy  while  living.1  Still  more  significant  was 
the  fact  that  Leo  entered  Eome,  not  as  pope,  but  as  a  bare- 
footed pilgrim,  and  that  he  required  the  empty  formality  of 
an  election  within  the  city,  as  though  the  nomination  of  the 
emperor  had  given  him  no  claim  to  his  high  office.  Whether 
this  was  the  result  of  a  voice  from  heaven,  as  related  by  the 
papal  historians,2  or  whether  it  was  done  at  the  suggestion  of 
the  high-churchman  Hildebrand,  it  showed  that  the  new  pon- 
tiff magnified  his  office,  and  felt  that  the  line  of  distinction 
between  the  clerk  and  the  layman  was  to  be  sharply  drawn 
and  vigorously  defended. 

Damiani  lost  no  time  in  stimulating  the  stranger  to  the 
duties  expected  of  him  by  the  party  of  reform.  From  the 
retreat  of  Avellana  he  addressed  to  Leo  an  essay,  which  is 
the  saddest  of  all  the  sad  monuments  bequeathed  to  us  by 


1  Learning,  on  his  death-bed,  that 
he  was  not  to  be  buried  as  a  pope,  he 
requested  the  prelates  around  him  to 
place  his  coffin  at  the  church-door 
securely  fastened,  and  if  the  portals 
opened  without  human  hands,  it  would 


be  a  sign  that  he  should  receive  papal 
honors.  It  was  done,  when  a  gust  of 
wind  burst  open  the  door  and  lifted 
the  coffin  from  the  bier.  (Martin.  Ful- 
dens.  Chron.  ann.  1046.) 

2  Martin.  Fuldens.  ann.  1050. 


196 


PETER   DAMIANI 


that  age  of  desolation.  With  cynical  boldness  lie  develops 
the  frightful  excesses  epidemically  prevalent  among  the  clois- 
tered crowds  of  men,  attributable  to  the  unnatural  restraints 
imposed  upon  the  passions  of  those  unfitted  by  nature  or  by 
training  to  control  themselves ;  and  his  laborious  efforts  to 
demonstrate  the  propriety  of  punishing  the  guilty  by  degra- 
dation show  how  hideous  was  the  laxity  of  morals  which  was 
disposed  to  regard  such  crimes  with  indulgence.1  Like  the 
nameless  horrors  of  the  Penitentials,  it  is  the  most  convincing 
commentary  on  the  system  which  sought  to  enforce  an  impos- 
sible exaltation  of  purity  on  the  ministers  of  a  religion  whose 
outward  formalism  had  absorbed  its  internal  life.2 

Leo  IX.  was  not  long  in  manifesting  his  intentions,  and  his 
first  point  of  attack  was  chosen  with  some  skill,  the  ecclesi- 
astical rank  of  the  victim  and  his  want  of  power  rendering 
him  at  once  a  striking  example  and  an  easy  sacrifice.  Da- 
bralis,  Archbishop  of  Salona  (or  Spalatro)  in  Dalmatia,  was 
married  and  lived  openly  with  his  wife.  Leo  sent  a  legate 
to  investigate  and  punish.  Called  before  a  synod,  Dabralis 
could  not  or  deigned  not  to  deny  his  guilt,  but  boldly  justi- 
fied it,  as  the  woman  was  his  lawful  wife,  and  he  instanced 


1  Damiani  Opusc.  vn.  (Liber  Go- 
morrhianus). —  Some  ten  or  twelve 
years  later,  Alexander  II.  obtained  the 
manuscript  from  Damiani,  under  pre- 
tence of  having  it  copied,  but  pru- 
dently locked  it  up  and  refused  to 
return  it.  The  saintly  author  com- 
plained bitterly  of  the  deception  thus 
practised  upon  him,  which  he  uncere- 
moniously characterized  as  a  fraud. 
(Damiani  Lib.  n.  Epist.  6.) 

2  The  world  can  never  know  the 
long  and  silent  suffering  endured  in 
the  terrible  self-combat  of  ardent  na- 
tures in  the  solitude  of  the  cloister. 
If  many  succumb,  the  indignation 
which  Damiani  and  his  class  so  freely 
bestow  on  the  victims  should  be  trans- 
ferred rather  to  the  system  which  pro- 
duces them.  A  monk  of  the  period 
has  left  us  a  vivid  and  curious  picture 
of  his  own  tortures  in  the  endless 
struggle  with  the  tempter ;    and  the 


mental  torments  to  which  his  fellow- 
unfortunates  were  exposed  are  aptly 
condensed  in  the  simple  tale  of  the 
Abbess  Sarah,  who  for  thirteen  long 
years  maintained  her  ground  without 
shrinking  from  the  ceaseless  assaults 
of  the  enemy  by  continually  invoking 
the  aid  of  God — "  Da  mihi  fortitudi- 
nem  Deus  !"  (Othlon.  de  Tentat.  suis 
P.i.) 

The  hagiology  of  the  church  is  full 
of  legends,  more  or  less  veritable,  of 
the  sufferings  of  these  martyrs  and  of 
their  triumphs  over  the  flesh,  from  the 
time  of  St.  Ammonius,  who,  when  less 
decisive  measures  failed,  bored  his 
flesh  in  many  places  with  red-hot  iron, 
and  thus  vanquished  passion  by  suf- 
fering. A  collection  of  these  stories, 
more  curious  than  decent,  may  be 
found  admiringly  detailed  by  Giraldus 
Cambrensis  in  his  Gemma  Ecclesias- 
tica,  Dist.  n. 


REFORMATION    COMMENCED.  197 

the  customs  of  the  Greek  church  in  his  defence.  This  only 
aggravated  his  guilt,  and  he  was  promptly  degraded  forever.1 
Leaving,  for  a  time,  the  Italian  church  for  subsequent 
efforts  at  reformation,  Leo  undertook  a  progress  throughout 
Northern  Europe,  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  the  neglected 
discipline  of  those  regions.  Before  the  year  of  his  installa- 
tion had  expired,  in  November,  1049,  we  find  him  presiding 
with  the  emperor  at  a  council  in  Mainz,  where  the  simony 
and  marriage  of  the  clergy  were  condemned  under  severe 
penalties.2  That  the  influence  thus  brought  to  bear  had  some 
effect,  at  least  in  externals,  is  shown  by  the  courtly  Albert 
of  Hamburg,  who,  on  returning  from  the  council  to  his  see, 
revived  a  forgotten  regulation  of  his  predecessors,  by  virtue 
of  which  the  women  of  ecclesiastics  were  ordered  to  live 
outside  of  the  towns,  in  order  to  avoid  public  scandal.3  A 
few  weeks  before,  in  France,  Leo  had  presided  over  a  national 
council  at  Eheims,  where  his  vigorous  action  against  simony 
caused  numerous  vacancies  in  the  hierarchy.  The  records 
and  canons  of  this  council  contain  no  allusions  to  the  sub- 
ject of  marriage  or  concubinage,  but  it  is  altogether  impro- 
bable that  they  escaped  attention,  for  they  were  indulged  in 
without  concealment  by  all  classes  of  ecclesiastics,  and  some 
subsequent  writers  assert  that  they  were  rigorously  prohibited 
by  the  council,  but  that  the  injunctions  promulgated  were 
unavailing.4 


1  Cum  crimen  Dabralis  arcbiepiscopi  j  et  palam  superbirent  multiplici  pro- 
esset  notorium,  ccepit  se  frivolis  alle-  j  pagine  filiorum  ac  filiarum.  .  .  Tandem 
gationibus  excusare.  Dicebat  enim  ...  Leo  Papa  ...  in  Gallias  A.  D. 
prsedictam  mulierem  sibi  fore  legiti-  !  1049  venit.  .  .  Tunc  ibidem  (Remis) 
mam,quamexconsuetudineOrientalis  !  generale   concilium    tenuit,    et    inter 


Ecclesise  secum  poterat  licite  retinere. 
— Battbyani  Leg.  Eccles.  Hung.  I.  401. 

2  Symoniaca  bseresis  et  nefanda  sa- 
cerdotum  conjugia  olograpba  synodi 
manu  perpetuo  dampnata  sunt.  — 
Adami  Bremens.  Gest.   Pontif.  Ham- 


reliqua  ecclesise  commoda  quae  insti- 
tuit,  presbyteris  arma  ferre  et  conjuges 
babere  probibuit.  Arma  quidem  ferre 
presbyteri  jam  gratanter  desiere,  sed 
a  pellicibus  adbuc  nolunt  abstinere, 
nee  pudicitbp  inbserere. — Orderic.  Vi- 

mlb^r  jLYbTin.'  cT  29.'  *  "  |  ta/-  P'  «■  ™\r'  c:  ""T^H  P0^™ 

of  tbe  work  of  Omericus  was  written 


See  also  Annalista  Saxo,  ann.  1048. 
3  Adam.  Bremens.  loc.  cit. 


about  tbe  year  1125. 

Ibi  vero  simoniaci,  tarn  populares 


.  m  •         •    at       i  •  x     j     quam   clenci,   presbytenque  uxorati, 

4  Tunc  quippe  in  Neustna,  post  ad-    H  .  *•  -ir  •  At 

j  persuasione  sancti  Hugonis,  a  catho- 

i  licorum  communione  et  ab  ecclesiis 

eliminati  sunt. — Alberic.  Trium  Fon- 


ventum  Normannorum,  in  tantum  dis- 

soluta  erat  castitas  clericorum,  ut  non 

solum  presbyteri  sed  etiam  prsesules    r«"~*r«v*  (3Lt"1"     *VXJn" 

libere  uterentur  toris  concubinarum,    tmm  Chron'  aun"  1049' 


198  PETER   DAMIANI. 

Eeturning  to  the  South,  the  Easter  of  1051  beheld  a  coun- 
cil assembled  at  Eome  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  discipline. 
Apparently,  the  Italian  prelates  were  disposed  to  exercise 
considerable  caution  in  furthering  the  wishes  of  their  chief, 
for  they  abstained  from  visiting  their  indignation  on  the 
guilty  priests,  and  directed  their  penalties  against  the  unfor- 
tunate females.  In  the  city  itself  these  were  declared  to  be 
enslaved,  and  were  bestowed  on  the  cathedral  church  of  the 
Lateran,  while  all  bishops  throughout  Christendom  were 
desired  to  apply  the  rule  to  their  own  dioceses,  and  to  seize 
the  offending  women  for  the  benefit  of  their  churches.1  The 
atrocity  of  this  legislation  against  the  wives  of  priests  is  sin- 
gularly contrasted  with  the  tenderness  shown  to  worse  crimes 
when  committed  by  men  whose  high  position  only  rendered 
their  guilt  the  more  heinous.  At  this  council,  Gregory, 
Bishop  of  Vercelli,  was  convicted  of  what,  by  the  rules  of 
the  church,  was  considered  as  incest — an  amour  with  a  widow 
betrothed  to  his  uncle.  For  this  aggravated  offence  he  was 
merely  excommunicated,  and  when,  soon  after,  he  presented 
himself  in  Eome,  he  was  restored  to  communion  on  his  simple 
promise  to  perform  adequate  penance.2 

The  reformatory  zeal  of  Leo  and  of  the  monastic  followers 
of  Damiani  was  thus  evidently  not  seconded  by  the  Italian 
church.  A  still  more  striking  proof  of  this  was  afforded  by 
the  attempt  to  hold  a  council  at  Mantua  early  in  1053.  The 
prelates  who  dreaded  the  result  conspired  to  break  it  up.  A 
riot  was  provoked  between  their  retainers  and  the  papal 
domestics ;  the  latter,  taken  unawares  and  speedily  over- 
powered, fled  to  the  council-chamber  for  safety,  and  Leo, 
rushing  to  the  door  to  protect  them,  was  in  imminent  danger 
from  the  arrows  and  stones  which  hurtled  thickly  around 
him.3  The  reckless  plot  succeeded,  and  the  council  dispersed 
in  undignified  haste.  Whether  Leo  was  disgusted  with  his 
want  of  success  and  convinced  of  the  impracticability  of  the 
undertaking,  or  whether  his  attention  was  thenceforth  ab- 
sorbed by  his  unlucky  military  operations  against  the  rapidly 


1  Damiani  Opusc.  xviir.  Diss.  ii.  c.  7. 

2  Herman.  Contract.  Chron.  ann.  1051. 

3  Muratori  Annali,  ann.  1053. 


RESISTANCE    OF    THE    CLERGY.  199 

augmenting  Norman  power  in  Southern  Italy,  it  is  not  easy 
now  to  ascertain :  suffice  it  to  say  that  no  further  indications 
remain  of  any  endeavor  to  carry  out  the  reforms  so  eagerly 
commenced  in  the  first  ardor  of  his  pontificate.  The  con- 
sistent Damiani  opposed  the  warlike  aspirations  of  the  pontiff, 
but  Leo  persisted  in  leading  his  armies  himself.  A  lost  battle 
threw  Leo  into  the  power  of  the  hated  Normans,  when,  after 
nine  months,  he  returned  to  Eome  to  die,  in  April,  1054.1 

After  an  interval  of  about  a  year,  the  line  of  German 
pontiffs  was  continued  in  the  person  of  Gebhardt,  Bishop  of 
Eichstett  (Victor  II.),  whose  appointment  by  the  emperor 
was  owing  in  no  small  degree  to  the  influence  of  Hilde- 
brand — an  influence  which  was  daily  making  itself  more  felt. 
Installed  in  the  pontifical  seat  by  Godfrey,  Duke  of  Tuscany, 
his  efforts  to  continue  the  reformation  commenced  by  his  ' 
predecessors  aroused  a  stubborn  resistance.  There  may  be 
no  foundation  for  the  legend  of  his  being  saved  by  a  miracle 
from  a  sacramental  cup  poisoned  by  a  vengeful  subdeacon, 
nor  for  the  rumors  that  his  early  death  was  hastened  by  the 
recalcitrant  clergy  who  sought  to  escape  the  severity  of  his 
discipline.  There  is  some  probability  in  the  stories,  however, 
for,  during  his  short  pontificate,  interrupted  by  a  lengthened 
stay  in  Germany  and  the  perpetual  vicissitudes  of  the  Neapo- 


1  It  is  not  easy  to  repress  a  smile  on  I  defeat  on  the  part  of  the  latter.  In 
seeing  Leo,  who  had  been  so  utterly  |  view  of  the  frightful  immorality  of 
unable  to  enforce  the  canons  of  the  j  the  Italian  clergy,  there  is  something 
Latin  church  at  home,  seriously  un-  peculiarly  ludicrous  in  the  mingled 
dertaking  to  procure  their  adoption  in  anger,  contempt,  and  abhorrence  with 
Constantinople.  From  his  prison,  in  which  Humbert  alludes  to  the  mar- 
January,  1054,  he  sent  Cardinal  Hum-  riage  of  the  Greek  clergy—"  Sed  tu 
bert  of  Silva  Candida  on  a  mission  to  ecclesiam  Dei  volens  efficere  synago- 
convert  the  Greek  church.  There  is  gam  Satanse  et  prostibulum  Balaam 
extant  a  controversy  between  the  le-  et  Jezabel,"  "Mahomed  cujus  farinse 
gate  and  Nicetas  Pectoratus,  a  learned  j  totus  es,"  "Tu  vero  miserrime  Niceta, 
Greek  abbot,  on  the  various  points  in  I  donee  resipiscas,  sis  anathema  ab  omni 
dispute.  I  cannot  profess  to  decide  i  Christi  ecclesia,  cum  omnibus  qui  tibi 
which  of  the  antagonists  had  the  ad-  I  acquiescunt  in  tarn  perversa  doctrina," 
vantage  on  the  recondite  questions  of  }  with  other  equally  courteous  and  con- 
the  use  of  unleavened  bread,  the  Sab-  !  vincing  arguments.  Humbert  attri- 
bath  fasts,  the  calculation  of  Easter,  I  butes  priestly  marriage  altogether  to 
&c,  but  the  contrast  between  the  ur-  the  heresy  of  the  Nicolites,  and  lays 
banity  of  the  Greek  and  the  coarse  I  down  the  law  on  the  subject  as  in- 
vituperation  of  the  Latin  is  strikingly  exorably  as  though  it  were  at  the  time 
suggestive   as    a    tacit   confession   of  |  observed  in  his  own  church. 


200  PETER   DAMIANI. 

litan  troubles,  he  yet  found  time  to  hold  a  synod  at  Florence, 
where  he  degraded  numerous  prelates  for  simony  and  licen- 
tiousness; but,  whether  true  or  false,  the  existence  of  the 
reports  attests  at  once  the  sincerity  of  his  zeal  and  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  task.1 

His  death  in  July,  1057,  was  followed  after  but  a  few  days' 
interval  by  the  election  of  Frederic,  Duke  of  Lorraine — the 
empire  having  passed  in  1056  from  the  able  hands  of  Henry 
III.  to  the  feeble  regency  of  his  empress,  Agnes,  as  guardian 
of  the  unfortunate  infant  Henry  IV. — thus  releasing  the  Eoman 
clergy  from  the  degrading  dictation  of  a  Teutonic  potentate. 
That  Frederic  should  have  abandoned  the  temptations  and 
ambitions  of  his  lofty  station,  to  embrace  the  austerities  of 
monastic  life  in  the  abbey  of  Monte  Casino,  is  a  sufficient 
voucher  that  he  would  not  draw  back  from  the  work  thus  far 
hopelessly  undertaken  by  his  predecessors.  Notwithstanding 
the  severity  of  the  canons  promulgated  during  the  previous 
decade,  and  the  incessant  attempts  to  enforce  them,  Eome  was 
still  fall  of  married  priests,  and  the  battle  had  to  be  recom- 
menced, as  though  nothing  had  yet  been  done.  Immediately 
on  his  installation  as  Stephen  IX.,  he  addressed  himself  un- 
shrinkingly to  the  task.  For  four  months,  during  the  most 
unhealthy  season,  he  remained  in  Rome,  calling  synod  after 
synod,  and  laboring  with  both  clergy  and  people  to  put  an 
end  to  such  unholy  unions,2  and  he  summarily  expelled  from 
the  church  all  who  had  been  guilty  of  incontinence  since  the 
prohibitions  issued  in  the  time  of  Leo.3  One  case  is  related 
of  a  contumacious  priest  whose  sudden  death  gave  him  the 
opportunity  of  striking  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  reckless, 
for-  the  mutilated  funeral  rites  which  deprived  the  hardened 
sinner  of  the  consolation  of  a  Christian  burial  it  was  hoped 
would  prove  an  effectual  warning  to  his  fellows.4  Feeling 
the  necessity  of  support  in  these  thankless  labors,  he  forced 


1  Lambert.  Schaffnab.  arm.  1054. — 
Martin.  Polon.  ami.  1057. 

2  Per  quatuor  igitur  continuos  men- 
ses Romas  moratus,  ac  frequentibns 
synodis    clerum    Urbis    popul  unique  j  c.  6. 


consanguinearum  copulationibus  des- 
truendis  nimio  zelo  decertans. — Leo. 
Marsic.  Chron.  Cassinens.  Lib.  n.  c.  97. 

Damiaui   Opusc.    xvm.    Diss.   ii. 


conveniens,  maximeque  pro  coiijugns 
clericorum  ae  sacerdotum  necnon  et 


Ibid. 


DAMIANI    AND   HILDEBRAND.  201 

Damiani  to  leave  the  retirement  of  the  cloistered  shades  of 
Avellana,  and  to  bear,  as  Bishop  of  Ostia,  his  share  of  the 
burden  in  the  contest  which  he  had  done  so  much  to  pro- 
voke— but  it  was  all  in  vain. 

In  little  more  than  half  a  year  Stephen  found  refuge  from 
strife  and  turmoil  in  the  tomb.  The  election  of  his  successor, 
Gerard,  Bishop  of  Florence,  was  the  formal  proclamation  that 
the  church  was  no  longer  subjected  to  the  control  of  the 
secular  authority.  January  18th,  1058,  saw  the  power  of  the 
emperor  defied,  and  the  gauntlet  thrown  for  the  sempiternal 
quarrel  which  for  three  centuries  was  to  plunge  Central  and 
Southern  Europe  in  turmoil  and  bloodshed.  Henry  III.  had 
labored  conscientiously  to  rescue  the  papacy  from  the  disgrace 
into  which  it  had  fallen.  By  removing  it  from  the  petty 
sphere  of  the  counts  of  Tusculum  and  the  barons  of  the  Cam- 
pagna,  and  by  providing  for  it  a  series  of  high  minded  and 
energetic  pontiffs,  he  had  restored  its  forfeited  position,  and 
indeed  had  conferred  upon  it  an  amount  of  influence  Avhich 
it  had  never  before  possessed.  His  thorough  disinterestedness 
and  his  labors  for  its  improvement  had  disarmed  all  resistance 
to  the  exercise  of  his  power,  but  when  that  power  passed  into 
the  hands  of  an  infant  but  five  years  old,  it  was  natural  that 
the  church  should  seek  to  emancipate  itself  from  subjection; 
and  if  almost  the  first  use  made  of  its  new-found  prerogatives 
was  to  crush  the  hand  that  had  enabled  it  to  obtain  them,  we 
must  not  tax  with  ingratitude  those  who  were  undoubtedly 
penetrated  with  the  conviction  that  they  were  only  vindi- 
cating the  imprescriptible  rights  of  the  church,  and  that  to 
them  was  confided  the  future  of  religion  and  civilization. 

In  the  revolution  which  thus  may  date  its  successful  com- 
mencement at  this  period  the  two  foremost  figures  are  Damiani 
and  Hildebrand.  Damiani  the  monk,  with  no  further  object 
than  the  abolition  of  simony  and  the  enforcement  of  the 
austerities  which  he  deemed  indispensable  to  the  salvation  of 
the  individual  and  to  the  purity  of  the  church,  looked  not 
beyond  the  narrow  circle  of  his  daily  life,  and  sought  merely 
to  level  mankind  by  the  measure  of  his  own  stature.  Hilde- 
brand, the  far-seeing  statesman,  could  make  use  of  Damiani 


202  PETER   DAMIANI. 

and  his  tribe,  perhaps  equal]y  fervent  in  his  belief  that  the 
asceticism  of  his  fellow  laborer  was  an  acceptable  offering  to 
God,  but  yet  with  ulterior  views  of  transcendently  greater 
importance.  In  his  grand  scheme  of  a  theocratic  empire,  it 
became  an  absolute  prerequisite  that  the  church  should  hold 
undivided  sway  over  its  members;  that  no  human  affection 
should  render  their  allegiance  doubtful,  but  that  their  every 
thought  and  action  should  be  devoted  to  the  common  aggran- 
dizement ;  that  they  should  be  separated  from  the  people  by 
an  impassable  barrier,  and  should  wield  an  influence  which 
could  only  be  obtained  by  those  who  were  recognized  as 
superior  to  the  weaknesses  of  common  humanity ;  that  the 
immense  landed  possessions  of  the  church  should  remain  un- 
touched and  constantly  increasing  as  the  common  property 
of  all,  and  not  be  subjected  to  the  incessant  dilapidations  in- 
separable from  uxorious  or  paternal  affections  at  a  time  when 
the  restraints  of  law  and  of  public  opinion  could  not  be 
brought  to  bear  with  effect.  In  short,  if  the  church  was  to 
assume  and  maintain  the  position  to  which  it  was  entitled  by 
the  traditions  of  the  canon  law  and  of  the  False  Decretals,  it 
must  be  a  compact  and  mutually  supporting  body,  earning 
by  its  self-inflicted  austerities  the  reverence  to  which  it  laid 
claim,  and  not  be  diverted  from  its  splendid  goal  by  worldly 
allurements  or  carnal  indulgences  and  preoccupations.  Such 
was  the  vision  to  the  realization  of  which  Hildebrancl  devoted 
his  commanding  talents  and  matchless  force  of  will.  The 
temporal  success  was  at  length  all  that  he  could  have  antici- 
pated. If  the  spiritual  results  were  craft,  subtlety,  arrogance, 
cruelty,  and  sensuality,  hidden  or  cynical,  it  merely  proves  that 
his  confidence  in  the  strength  of  human  nature  to  endure  the 
intoxicating  effects  of  irresponsible  power  was  misplaced. 
Meanwhile  he  labored  with  Damiani  at  the  preliminary  mea- 
sures of  his  enterprise,  and  together  they  bent  their  energies 
to  procure  the  enforcement  of  the  neglected  rules  of  discipline. 
The  new  pope,  Nicholas  II.  by  name,  entered  unreservedly 
into  their  views.  Apparently  taught  by  experience  the  fruit- 
lessness  of  additional  legislation  when  the  existing  canons 
were  amply  sufficient,  but  their  execution  impossible  through 
the  negligence  or  collusion  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities, 


NICHOLAS   II 


203 


he  assembled,  in  1059,  a  council  of  a  hundred  and  thirteen 
bishops,  in  which  he  adopted  the  novel  and  hazardous  ex- 
pedient of  appealing  to  the  laity,  and  of  rendering  them  at 
once  the  judges  and  executioners  of  their  pastors.  A  canon 
was  promulgated  forbidding  all  Christians  to  be  present  at 
the  mass  of  any  priest  known  to  keep  a  concubine  or  female 
in  his  house.1  This  probably  remained,  like  its  predecessors, 
a  dead  letter  for  the  present,  but  we  shall  see  what  confusion 
it  excited  when  it  was  revived  and  put  effectually  in  force  by 
Gregory  VII.  some  fifteen  years  later.  Meanwhile  I  may 
observe  that  it  trenched  very  nearly  on  the  Donatist  heresy 
that  the  sacrament  was  polluted  in  polluted  hands,  and  it  re- 
quired the  most  careful  word-splitting  to  prevent  the  faithful 
from  drawing  a  conclusion  so  natural.2 


1  Ut  nullus  missara  audiat  presby- 
teri  quern  scit  concubinam  indubitan- 
ter  liabere  aut  subintroductam  mulie- 
rem. — Concil.  Roman,  aim.  ]059,c.  3. 

Singularly  enough,  this  clause  is 
omitted  in  the  synodical  epistle  ad- 
dressed to  the  Gallic  clergy,  as  given 
by  Hugh  of  Flavigny,  Chron.  Lib.  n. 
aim.  1059. 

2  How  utterly  this  was  opposed  to 
the  received  dogmas  and  practice  of 
the  church  can  be  seen  from  the  de- 
cision of  Nicholas  I.  on  the  same 
question — "  Sciscitantibus  vobis,  si  a 
sacerdote,  qui  sive  comprehensus  est 
in  adulterio,  sive  de  hoc  fama  sola 
respersus  est,  debeatis  communionem 
suscipere,  necne,  respondemus :  Non 
potest  aliquis  quantumcumque  pol- 
lutus  sit,  sacramenta  divina  polluere, 
qua?  purgatoria  cunctarum  remedia 
contagionum  existunt.  .  .  .  Sumite, 
igitur,  intrepide  ab  omni  sacerdote 
Christi  mysteria,  quoniam  omnia  in 
fide  purgantur."  (Nicolai  I.  Epist. 
xcvn.  c.  71.)  See  also  a  similar  de- 
cision in  727  by  Gregory  II.  (Boni- 
facii  Epist.  cxxvi.) 

Damiani  saw  the  danger  to  which 
a  practice  such  as  this  exposed  the 
church,  and  lifted  up  his  voice  to  pre- 
vent the  evil  results — 

Audite  etiam,  laici, 
Qui  Christo  famulamini ; 
Pro  ullo  unquam  crimine, 
Pastores  non  despicite. 

(Carmen  ccxxii.)  ; 


and  when,  about  the  year  1060,  the 
Florentines  refused  tbe  ministrations 
of  their  bishop,  whom  they  were  de- 
termined from  other  causes  to  eject, 
he  reproved  them  warmly,  adducing 
the  only  reasonable  view  of  the  ques- 
tion, "  quod  Spiritus  Sanctus  per  im- 
probi  ministerium  dare  potest  sua  cha- 
rismata" (Opusc.  xxx.  c.  2).  Simo- 
niacal  priests  as  well  as  concubinary 
ones  were  included  in  the  ban,  and 
when,  in  1049,  Leo  IX.  commenced 
his  vigorous  persecution  of  simony, 
there  arose  a  belief  that  ordination 
received  at  hands  tainted  with  that 
sin  was  null  and  void.  This  was 
promptly  stigmatized  as  a  heresy,  and 
Damiani's  untiring  pen  was  employed 
in  combating  it.  He  argued  the  ques- 
tion very  thoroughly  and  keenly  when 
it  was  under  debate  by  a  synod,  and 
succeeded  in  procuring  its  condemna- 
tion (Opusc.  vi.  c.  12). 

The  prohibition,  first  proclaimed  by 
Nicholas  II.  and  finally  enforced  by 
Gregory  VII.,  caused  no  little  trouble 
in  the  church.  Towards  the  close  of 
the  century,  Urban  II.  found  himself 
obliged  to  discuss  the  question,  and 
in  an  epistle  to  Lucius,  provost  of  the 
church  of  St.  Juventius  at  Pavia,  he 
admits  that  the  sacraments  adminis- 
tered by  guilty  priests  are  uncorrupted, 
yet  he  approves  of  their  rejection  in 
j  order  to  stimulate  the  clergy  to  virtue, 
J  and  even  declares  that  those  who  re- 
ceive them,  except  under  instant  and 


204 


PETER    DAMIANI 


In  addition  to  this,  the  council  ordered,  under  pain  of  ex- 
communication, that  no  priest  who  openly  took  a  concubine 
(or  rather  a  wife),  or  who  did  not  forthwith  separate  himself 
from  such  a  connection  already  existing,  should  dare  to  per- 
form any  sacred  function,  or  enjoy  any  portion  of  ecclesiastical 
revenue.1      Hildebrand,  who  was  all-powerful  at  the  papal 


pressing  necessity,  are  guilty  of  idola- 
try ("nisi  forte  sola  morte  interveni- 
ente,  utpote  ne  sine  baptismate  vel 
communione  quilibet  humanis  rebus 
excedat ;  eis,  inquam,  in  tantum  ob- 
sunt,  ut  veri  idolatry  sint" — Urbani 
II.  Epist.  cclxxiii.) — a  decision  the 
logic  of  which  is  not  readily  appre- 
hended. St.  Anselm  of  Canterbury 
assents  to  the  doctrine,  but  places  it 
in  a  more  reasonable  and  practical 
shape — "  non  quo  quis  ea  quse  tractent 
contemnenda,  sed  tractantes  execran- 
dos  existimet"  (Epist.  vin.).  The 
consequences  of  such  a  system,  how- 
ever, if  strictly  carried  out,  would 
have  been  most  disastrous  to  the 
church,  and  when  the  zeal  of  Hilde- 
brand became  forgotten  his  injunc- 
tions were  overruled.  A  century  later 
Lucius  III.  accordingly  returned  to 
the  policy  of  Nicholas  I. — "  Sumite 
ergo  ab  omni  sacerdote  intrepide 
Christi  mysteria,  quia  omnia  in  fide 
Christi  purgantur"  (Post  Lateran. 
Concil.  P.  l.  c.  38),  the  positiveness 
of  which  was  not  much  affected  by 
the  subtle  distinctions  which  he  en- 
deavored to  draw  between  crimes  no- 
torious and  tolerated.  The  church 
gradually  returned  to  the  old  doctrine 
and  practice.  In  1292  the  council  of 
Aschaffenburg  anathematized  those 
who  "  prsesumptione  dampnabili" 
taught  the  heresy  that  priests  in 
mortal  sin  could  not  perform  the 
sacred  mysteries,  and  it  decided 
"licite  ergo  a  quocumque  sacerdote 
ab  ecclesia  tolerato,  divina  mysteria 
audiantur  et  alia  recipiantur  ecclesi- 
astica  sacramenta"  (Concil.  Schafna- 
burg.  aim.  1292,  can.  i. — Hartzheim, 
IV.  7).  And  when  Wickliffe  and 
Huss  undertook  to  carry  out  the 
dicta  of  Nicholas  II.  and  Gregory 
VII.  to  their  legitimate  conclusions, 
the  policy  was  at  once  recognized  as 
a  heresy  of  the  worst  character  and 
most  destructive  consequence. 


1  Quincumque  sacerdotum,  diaco- 
norum,  subdiaconorum  .  .  .  concu- 
binam  palam  duxerit  vel  ductam  non 
reliquerit,  .  .  .  prsecipimus  et  omnino 
contradicimus,  ut  missam  non  cantet, 
neque  evangelium  vel  epistolam  ac 
missam  legat,  neque  in  presbjterio  ad 
divina  officia  cum  iis  qui  prsefatse 
constitution!  obedientes  fuerint,  ma- 
neat  ;  neque  partem  ab  ecclesia  sus- 
cipiat. — Concil.  Roman,  ami.  1059  c.  3. 

It  is  evident  here  that  the  oppro- 
brious epithet  "  concubine"  is  applied 
to  those  who  were  as  legally  wives  as 
it  was  possible  to  make  them.  Da- 
miani,  indeed,  admits  it,  and  even 
intimates  that  concubine  was  too 
honorable  a  word  to  be  applied  to  the 
wives  of  priests — "  Illorum  vero  cleri- 
corum  feminas,  qui  matrimonia  ne- 
queunt  legali  jure  contrahere,  non 
conjuges  sed  concubinas  potius,  sive 
prostibula  congrue  possumus  appel- 
lare"  (Opusc.  xvm.  Diss.  iii.  c.  2). 
After  this  period  it  will  be  found  that 
the  wives  of  priests  were  rarely  dig- 
nified with  the  title  of  "uxores," 
although  ordination  was  not  yet  an 
impediment  destructive  of  marriage. 

It  is  as  well  to  observe  here  that  at 
this  period  and  for  some  time  later  the 
position  of  the  concubine  had  not  the 
odium  attached  to  it  by  modern  man- 
ners, and  this  should  be  borne  in  mind 
when  reviewing  the  morals  of  the 
Middle  Ages.  The  connection  was  a 
recognized  and  almost  a  legal  one, 
following  the  traditions  of  the  Roman 
law,  by  which  it  was  legitimate  and 
permanent,  so  long  as  the  parties  re- 
spectively remained  unmarried.  A 
man  could  not  have  a  wife  and  con- 
cubine at  the  same  time  (Pauli  Sen- 
tent,  ii.  20),  nor  could  he  legally  have 
two  concubines  at  the  same  time 
(Novel,  xviii.  c.  5).  Not  only  were 
such  regulations  thus  promulgated  by 
Christian  emperors,  but  the  relation- 
ship   was    duly    recognized    by    the 


NICHOLAS    II 


205 


court — his  enemies  accused  him  of  keeping  Nicholas  like  an 
ass  in  the  stable,  feeding  him  to  do  his  work — has  the  credit 
of  procuring  this  legislation.1  Nicholas,  whether  acting 
under  the  impulsion  of  Hildebrand  and  Damiani,  or  from 
his  own  convictions,  followed  np  the  reform  with  vigor. 
During  the  same  year  he  visited  Southern  Italy,  and  by  his 
decided  proceedings  at  the  council  of  Melfi  endeavored  to 
put  an  end  to  the  sacerdotal  marriages  which  were  openly 
practised  everywhere  throughout  that  region,  and  the 
Bishop  of  Trani  was  deposed  as  an  example  and  warning  to 


Christian  church.  The  first  council 
of  Toledo,  in  398,  enjoined  upon  the 
faithful  "  tantum  aut  unius  mulieris, 
aut  uxoris  aut  concubinse,  ut  ei  pla- 
cuerit,  sit  conjunctione  contentus" 
(Concil.  Toletan.  I.  c.  17),  showing 
that  either  connection  apparently  was 
legitimate,  and  this  is  quoted  at  the 
commencement  of  the  tenth  century, 
as  still  in  force,  by  Regino  (De 
Discip.  Eccles.  Lib.  n.  c.  100.).  A  half 
century  later,  about  450,  Leo  I.  was 
actually  appealed  to  to  decide  whether 
a  man  who  quitted  a  concubine  and 
took  a  wife  committed  bigamy — which 
Leo  reasonably  enough  answered  in 
the  negative  (Leon.  Epist.  xc.  c.  5). 
The  principle  of  the  Roman  law  was 
still  the  rule  of  the  church  in  the  9th 
century,  for  a  Roman  synod  held  by 
Eugenius  II.  in  826  declared  "  Ut  non 
liceat  uno  tempore  duas  habere  ux- 
ores,  uxoremve  et  concubinam.  De 
illo  vero  qui  cum  uxore  concubinam 
habet,  prsecipit,  ut  si  admonitus  earn 
a  se  abjicere  noluerit,  communione 
privetur."  (Pertz,  Legum  T.  II.  P.  ii. 
p.  12.)  The  view  entertained  of  the 
matter  at  the  time  under  considera- 
tion may  be  gathered  from  a  canon 
of  the  council  of  Rome,  in  1063,  sus- 
pending from  communion  the  layman 
who  had  a  wife  and  concubine  at  the 
same  time  (Concil.  Roman,  ami.  1063, 
c.  10) — whence  we  may  deduce  that 
a  concubine  alone  was  hardly  con- 
sidered irregular.  During  the  latter 
part  of  the  succeeding  century  we 
find  the  concubine  a  recognized  insti- 
tution in  Scotland,  for  the -laws  of 
William  the  Lion,  after  sfating  that 
the  wife  was  not  bound  to  reveal  the 
crimes   of    her    husband,   adds   "  De 


concubina  vero  et  de  familia  domus 
non  est  ita ;  quia  ipsi  tenentur  reve- 
lare  maleficia  magistri  sui,  aut  debent 
a  servitio  suo  recedere"  (Statut.  Will- 
elmi  c.  xix.  §  9).  In  England,  late 
into  the  thirteenth  century,  Bracton 
speaks  of  the  "  concubina  legitima"  as 
entitled  to  certain  rights  and  con- 
sideration (Lib.  nr.  Tract,  ii.  c.  28, 
§  1,  and  Lib.  iv.  Tract,  vi.  c.  8,  §  4)  ; 
and  in  the  Danish  code  of  Waldemar 
II.,  which  was  in  force  from  1280  to 
1683,  there  is  a  provision  that  a  con- 
cubine kept  openly  for  three  years 
shall  be  held  to  be  a  legitimate  and 
legal  wife  (Leg.  Cimbric.  Lib.  i.  cap. 
xxvii.  Ed.  Ancher).  We  must  there- 
fore bear  in  mind  that  until  the  rule 
of  sacerdotal  celibacy  became  rigor- 
ously enforced,  the  "concubina"  of 
the  canons  generally  means  a  wife, 
and  that  for  some  time  afterwards  the 
concubine  was  by  no  means  neces- 
sarily the  shameless  woman  under- 
stood by  the  modern  acceptation  of 
the  term. 

1  Hujus  autem  constitution's  maxi- 
me  fuit  auctor  Hildebrandus,  tunc 
Romanse  ecclesise  archidiaconus,  hse- 
reticis  maxime  infestus.  (Bernaldi 
!  Chron.  ann.  1061.)  Benzo  declares,  in 
his  slashing  way,  stigmatizing  Hilde- 
brand as  a  Sarabite,  or  wandering 
monk,  "  De  cetero  pascebat  suum 
Nicholaum  Prandellus  in  Lateranensi 
palatio,  quasi  asinum  in  stabulo. 
Nullum  erat  opus  Nicholaitre,  nisi 
per  verbum  Sarabaitse."  (Comment, 
de  Reb.  Henr.  IV.  Lib.  vn.  c.  2.)  The 
verses  of  Damiani  on  the  influence  of 
Hildebrand  are  too  well  known  to 
quote. 


206 


PETER   DAMIANI 


others.1  Damiani  was  also  intrusted  with  a  mission  to  Milan 
for  the  same  purpose,  of  which  more  anon. 
9  Nor  did  Nicholas  confine  his  efforts  to  Italy.  His  legates  in 
other  countries  endeavored  to  enforce  the  canons,  and  appa- 
rently had  little  difficulty  in  obtaining  the  adoption  of  strin- 
gent regulations — the  more  easily  acceded  to  that  they  were 
utterly  disregarded.  Thus  his  legate  Stephen,  early  in  1060, 
held  councils  at  Vienne  and  Tours,  where  the  prohibitions  of 
the  synod  of  Eome  were  agreed  to,  and  those  who  did  not  at 
once  abandon  either  their  women  or  their  benefices  were  de- 
clared to  be  degraded  forever,  and  without  hope  of  restitution.2 
In  practice,  however,  all  these  measures  of  reform  were 
scarcely  felt  except  by  the  lower  grades  of  the  ecclesiastical 
body.  The  prelates,  whose  lives  were  equally  flagitious,  and 
far  more  damaging  to  the  reputation  and  purity  of  the  church, 
were  enabled  virtually  to  escape.  The  storm  passed  beneath 
them,  and  with  few  exceptions  persecuted  only  those  who  were 
powerless  to  oppose  anything  but  passive  resistance.  The  un- 
compromising zeal  of  Damiani  was  not  likely  to  let  a  tem- 
porizing lenity  so  misplaced  and  so  fatal  to  the  success  of  the 
cause  remain  unrebuked ;  and  he  calls  to  it  the  attention  of 
Nicholas,  stigmatizing  the  toleration  of  episcopal  sins  as  an 
absurdity  no  longer  to  be  endured.3  The  occasion  of  this 
exhortation  was  a  commission  intrusted  by  the  pope  to  Da- 
miani, to  hold  a  friendly  conference  with  the  prelates,  and  to 
induce  them  to  reform  their  evil  ways  without  forcing  the 
authorities  to  the  scandal  of  public  proceedings.  The  fear  of 
such  results  and  the  fiery  eloquence  of  Damiani  were  alike 
unheeded.     The  bishops  boldly  declared  themselves  unequal 


1  .  .  .   Hie  [Nicholaus]  ecclesiastica  propter 
Ad  partes  illas  tractanda  negotia  venit ; 
JJamque  sacerdotes,  levitffl,  clericus  omnis 
Hac  regione  palam  se  conjugio  sociabant. 
Concilium  celebrans  ibi,  Papa  faventibus 

illi 
Prsesulibus  centum  jus  ad  synodale  vo- 

catis, 
Ferre  sacerdotes  monet,  altarisque  minis- 

tros 
Arma  pudicitise,  vocat  hos  et  prsecipit  esse 
Ecclesise  sponsos,  quia  non  est  jure  sacer- 

dos 
Luxuriffi  cultor:  sic  extirpavit  ab  illis 
Partibus  uxores  omuino  presbyterorum. 

(Gulielmi  Appuli  de  Normann. 
Lib.  II.) 


2  Nullain  restitutionis  in  pristino 
gradu  veniam  sibi  reservasse  cog- 
noscat. — Coucil.  Turou.  ami.  1060, 
c.  6. 

3  Porro  autem  nos  contra  divina 
mandata,  personaruin  acceptores,  iu 
minoribus  quidam  sacerdotibus  luxu- 
ries inquinamenta  persequimur ;  in 
episcopis  autem,  quod  nimis  ab- 
surdum  est,  per  silentii  tolerantiam 
veneranmr.  —  Damiani  Opusc.  xvn. 
c.  1. 


FAILURE    OF    THE    REFORMATION.  207 

to  the  task  of  preserving  their  chastity,  and  indifferent  to  the 
remote  contingency  of  punishment  which  had  so  often  been 
ineffectually  threatened  that  its  capacity  for  exciting  appre- 
hension had  become  exhausted.  With  all  the  coarseness  of 
monastic  asceticism,  Damiani  describes  the  extent  of  the  evil, 
and  its  public  and  unblushing  exhibition ;  the  families  which 
grew  and  increased  around  the  prelates,  the  relationships 
which  were  ostentatiously  acknowledged,  and  the  scandals 
perpetrated  in  the  church  of  God.  In  the  boldest  strain  he 
then  incites  the  pope  to  action,  blames  his  misplaced  clem- 
ency, and  urges  the  degradation  of  all  offenders,  irrespective 
of  rank,  pointing  out  the  impossibility  of  reforming  the 
priesthood  if  the  bishops  are  allowed  full  and  undisturbed 
license.1 

This  shows  that  even  if  the  machinery  of  ecclesiastical 
authority  was  at  work  to  correct  the  errors  of  the  plebeian 
clergy,  it  was  only  local  and  sporadic  in  its  efforts.  In  some 
favored  dioceses,  perhaps,  blessed  with  a  puritan  bishop,  the 
decrees  of  the  innumerable*  councils  may  have  been  put  in 
force,  but  in  the  great  body  of  the  church  the  evil  remained 
unaltered.  During  this  very  year,  1060,  Nicholas  again  found 
it  necessary  to  promulgate  a  decretal  ordering  priests  to  quit 
their  wives  or  resign  their  position,  and  this  in  terms  which 
prove  how  utterly  futile  had  been  all  previous  fulminations. 
He  also  manifested  some  consideration  for  temporal  necessi- 
ties by  allowing  the  discarded  wives  to  live  with  their  hus- 
bands under  proper  supervision.2 


1  Sanctis  eorum  femoribus  volui  seras  j  minaconcubinaruin,socerorumquoque 
apponere.  Tentavi  genitalibus  sacer-  vocabula  simul  et  socruum  .  .  .  pos- 
dotum  (ut  ita  loquar)  continentia?  tremo,  ubi  omnis  dubietas  tollitur, 
fibulas  adbibere.  .  .  .  Hujus  autem  t  uteri  tumentes  et  pueri  vagieutes  etc. 
capituli  nudara  saltern  prornissionem  j  Damiani  Opusc.  xvn. 

2  Ut  presbyteri  conjugati  aut  uxores 
dimittant,  neque  cum  eis  sine  testi- 


tremulis  prolatam  labiis  difficilius  ex 
torquemus.  Primo,  quia  fastigium  cas 
titatis  attingere    se  posse   desperant 


,   .    ,  .  &  ,  \.  ,  y,      ,    '    monio  legitime-  habitent,  aut  ecclesiam 

demde   quia    synodah    se   plectendos  a?  ..  .  .!.      . 

/    t-  .      ,        *,        ...        i  cum  ordmibus  suis  amittant. 

esse  sententia  propter  luxunse  vitium  i      TT.  .    .     ,    .  A.         .    .       ,  ,. 

-        .,      .*    "       0.      .  .  Ut  presbyteri  et  diaconi  et  subdia- 

non  formidant.    .  .  .    bi  emm  malum  '         •    r  • 

,  ,.         -         .  -    .      ,      .      com  et  omnes  qui  canonici  sunt  uxores 

boc  esset  occultnm,  fuerat  fortassis  ut- j      „   .-v »!?*■«   A„-~-i~*    a ^ 

~         ,  j       ,  ,      ,  :  non   habeant.     hi  si   duxerint,  depo- 

cunque    ferendum;    sed,    ah    scelus !    n ant  t    a   canonicorum    co'„sortio 

omm  pudore  postposito,  pestis  baec  in  ■  Beparentur.__Decret.  Nicolai  PP.  c.  3 

tantam  prorupit  audaciam,  ut  per  ora    A  l    /t,„i,_    ni.  nT„^„-  tt    no  n\ 

t       i«*     t  i  t     i.-  4.     (Baluz.  et  Mansi,  11.  118-9). 

popuh  vohtent  loca  scortantium,  no-  v  y 


208  PETER   DAMIANI. 

How  complete  was  the  disregard  of  these  commands  is  well 
illustrated  by  an  epistle  which  about  this  time  Damiani  ad- 
dressed to  the  chaplains  of  Godfrey  the  Bearded,  Duke  of 
Tuscany.  From  this  we  learn  that  these  prominent  ecclesi- 
astics openly  defended  sacerdotal  marriage,  pronounced  it 
canonical,  and  were  ready  to  sustain  their  position  in  contro- 
versy.1 As  Duke  Godfrey,  with  the  pious  Beatrice  his  wife, 
was  the  leading  potentate  in  Italy,  and  as  his  territories  were 
in  close  proximity  to  Eome  itself,  it  is  evident  that  the  reform 
so  laboriously  prosecuted  for  the  previous  ten  or  fifteen  years 
had  thus  far  accomplished  little. 

Parties  were  now  beginning  to  define  themselves.  The 
reformers,  irritated  by  their  want  of  success,  were  for  more 
stringent  measures,  and  when  the  canonical  punishments  of 
degradation  and  excommunication  were  derided  and  defied, 
they  were  ready,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter  at  Milan,  to  have 
recourse  to  the  secular  arm,  and  to  invoke  the  aid  of  sword 
and  lance.  The  clergy,  finding  that  passive  resistance  did 
not  wear  out  the  zeal  of  their  persecutors,  that  the  storm 
promised  to  be  endless,  and  warned  by  the  fate  of  the  Mila- 
nese, were  prepared  to  adopt  an  aggressive  policy,  and  to  seek 
their  safety  in  revolutionizing  the  central  authority.  Per- 
haps the  bishops,  whose  silence  had  been  secured  by  the  tole- 
ration so  distasteful  to  Damiani,  began  to  feel  the  pressure 
which  he  was  bringing  to  bear  upon  them,  and  to  look  for- 
ward with  apprehension  to  the  unknown  evils  of  the  future. 
If  so,  they  were  ready  to  make  common  cause  with  their 
flocks,  and  to  throw  into  the  scale  the  immense  influence  due 
to  their  sacred  character  and  temporal  power.  Thus  only  the 
occasion  was  wanting  for  an  open  rupture,  and  that  occasion 
was  furnished  by  the  death  of  Nicholas  in  July,  10G1. 

The  factions  of  the  day  had  alienated  a  powerful  portion 
of  the  Eoman  barons  from  the  papal  party  as  represented  by 
Hildebrand.     They  at  once  united  with  the  Lombard  clergy 


1  "  Dogmatizatis  enirn  sacri  minis-  ]  denter  asseritis,  ministros  altaris  con- 
tros  altaris  jure  posse  niulieribus  per- I  jugio  debere  sociari  etc."  Damiani 
misceri  .  .  .  Jam   vero   quod  impu-  (Lib.  v.  Epist.  13. 


RESISTANCE   ORGANIZED   INTO    SCHISM.       209 

in  addressing  a  deputation  to  the  young  Henry  IV.,  who  was 
still  under  the  tutelage  of  his  mother  Agnes,  offering  him  a 
golden  crown  and  the  title  of  Patrician.  The  empire  was  not 
indisposed  to  vindicate  its  old  prerogatives-,  recently  annulled 
by  the  initial  act  of  Nicholas  limiting  the  right  of  papal 
election  to  the  Eoman  clergy.  The  overtures  were  therefore 
welcomed,  and  while  Anselmo,  Bishop  of  Lucca,  was  chosen 
in  Eome,  October  1st,  1061,  assuming  the  name  of  Alexander 
II.,  on  the  28th  of  the  same  month  a  rival  election  took  place 
in  Germany,  by  which  Cadalus,  Bishop  of  Parma,  was  in- 
vested with  the  perilous  dignity  of  Antipope,  and  divided 
the  allegiance  of  Christendom  under  the  title  of  Honorius  II. 
At  least  two  Italian  bishops  lent  their  suffrages  to  these  pro- 
ceedings— those  of  Vercelli  and  Piacenza — as  representatives 
of  the  Lombard  interest;  and,  if  the  testimony  of  Damiani 
is  to  be  believed,  they  were  men  whose  dissolute  lives  fitly 
represented  the  license  which  the  reformers  asserted  to  be 
the  principal  object  of  the  schismatics.1 

The  married  or  concubinary  clergy  were  now  no  longer 
merely  isolated  criminals,  to  be  punished  more  or  less  severely 
for  infractions  of  discipline.  They  were  a  united  body,  who 
boldly  proclaimed  the  correctness  of  their  course,  and  defended 
themselves  by  argument  as  well  as  by  political  intrigues  and 
military  operations.  They  thus  became  offenders  of  a  far 
deeper  dye,  for  the  principles  of  the  church  led  irrevocably 
to  the  conclusion,  paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  that  he  who 
was  guilty  of  immorality,  knowing  it  to  be  wrong,  was  far 
less  criminal  than  he  who  married,  believing  it  to  be  right.2 


1  Multum  sane  lsetificat  quod  hujus- 
modi  te  pontifices  elegerunt,  Placenti- 
nus  videlicet  et  Vercellinus,  qui  nimi- 
rum  multum  petulci  ac  proletarii,  sicut 
norunt  disputare  de  specie  femina- 
rum,  sic  utinam  potuissent  in  eligendo 
pontifice  perspicax  habere  judicium. 
—Ad  Cadaloum,  Lib.  i.  Epist.  20. 

2  In  1060,  Cardinal  Humbert  of 
Silva-Candida,  in  combating  the  pre- 
vailing vice  of  simony,  made  use  of 


be  neither  hope  nor  mercy  for  him. 
(Humbert.  Cardinal,  adv.  Simoniac. 
Lib.  in.  c.  43.)  Damiani  applied  this 
to  the  defenders  of  marriage  with  all 
his  vigor.  "  Qui  nimirum  dum  cor- 
ruunt,  impudici ;  dum  defendere  ni- 
tuntur,  merito  judicantur  hseretici." 
(Opusc.  xviii.  Diss.  ii.  c.  8.)  "Nam 
cum  peccat  homo,  quasi  in  puteum 
labitur  ;  cum  vero  peccata  defendit, 
os  putei  super  eum,  ne  pateat  egressus, 


this  argument,  reasoning  that  an  im-  I  urget*r-  ■  •  Hoc  autem  inter  peccato 
moral  priest  may  be  suspended  or  may  Arem  eJ  hse.reticum  distat :  quia  pecca 
be  tolerated  in  hope  of  amendment ,  t0r.est  ^  delmqmt,  haereticus  autem 
but  if  he  trenches  on  heresy,  there  can  JU1  *?°?a*£m  per  Pra™m  dogma  de- 
"  !  fendit."    (Opusc.  xxiv.  Prsef.) 

14 


210 


PETER    DAMIANI. 


What  before  had  been  a  transgression,  to  be  redeemed  by 
penance  and  repentance,  became  heresy — an  awful  word  in 
those  fierce  times.  The  odious  name  of  Nicolites  was  speedily 
fastened  on  the  schismatics,  and  the  Apocalyptic  denuncia- 
tions of  St.  John  were  universally  held  applicable  to  them. 
According  to  Damiani,  they  supported  Cadalus  in  the  ex- 
pectation that  his  success  would  lead  to  a  modification  in  the 
discipline  of  the  church,  by  which  the  license  to  "marry  would 
be  accorded  to  all  ecclesiastics.1 

That  support  was  efficient,  and  it  was  shortly  needed.  A 
revolution  suddenly  occurred  in  the  politics  of  Germany. 
Some  dissatisfied  nobles  and  prelates  conspired  to  obtain 
power  by  overthrowing  the  regency  of  the  dowager  Empress 
Agnes.  A  stroke  of  daring  treachery  put  them  in  possession 
of  the  person  of  the  boy-king,  and  the  arch-conspirator  Hanno 
of  Cologne  earned  his  canonization  by  reversing  at  once  the 
policy  of  the  previous  administration.  In  a  solemn  council 
held  at  Osber  in  1062,  the  pretensions  of  Cadalus  were  repu- 
diated, and  Alexander  II.  was  recognized  as  pope.  Still 
Cadalus  did  not  despair,  but  wit.h  the  aid  of  the  Lombard 
clergy  he  raised  forces  and  marched  on  Eome,  relying  on 
his  adherents  within  the  walls.  They  admitted  him  into  the 
Leonine  city,  where  he  threw  himself  into  the  impregnable 
castle  of  San  Angelo.  Immediately  besieged  by  the  Eomans, 
he  resolutely  held  out  for  two  years,  in  spite  of  incredible 
privations,  but  at  length  he  sought  safety  in  flight  with  but 
a  single  follower.  Meanwhile  his  party,  as  a  political  body, 
.had  become  broken  up,  and  though  Henry,  Archbishop  of 
Eavenna,  still  adhered  to  him,  he  was  powerless  to  maintain 
his  claims.  Finally,  in  1067,  Alexander  held  a  council  at 
Mantua,  cleared  his  election  of  imputed  irregularity,  and  was 
universally  recognized. 

During  this  period,  the  "Nicolitan"  clergy  by  no  means 
abandoned  their  tenets.  In  1063,  as  soon  as  he  could  feel 
reasonably  assured  of  his  eventual  success,  Alexander  assem- 


1  Qui  hactenus  dicti  sunt  Nicolaitse, 
araodo  vocentur  et  Cadaloitae.  Sperant 
enim  quia  si  Cadalous,  qui  ad  hoc 
gehennaliter  sestuat,  universali  eccle- 


sise  Antichristi  vice  prsesederit,  ad 
eorum  votum  luxurise  frena  laxabit. 
— Opusc.  xviii.  Diss.  ii.  c.  8. 


SCHISM    DEFEATED HERESY    SURVIVES.       211 

bled  more  than  a  hundred  bishops  in  council  at  Eome,  where 
he  emphatically  repeated  the  canon  promulgated  in  1059  by 
Nicholas  II.,  which  was  not  only  a  proclamation  of  his  fidelity 
to  the  cause  of  reform,  but  an  admission  that  the  legislation 
of  his  predecessor  had  thus  far-  proved  fruitless.  Damiani, 
also,  labored  unceasingly  with  argument  and  exhortation,  but 
the  vehemence  of  his  declamation  only  shows  how  widely 
extended  and  how  powerful  the  heresy  still  was.  We  shall 
see  hereafter  that  on  a  mission  to  Milan,  to  reduce  the  mar- 
ried clergy  to  obedience,  he  barely  escaped  with  his  life ;  and 
on  another  to  Lodi,  with  the  same  object,  the  schismatics, 
after  exhausting  argument,  threatened  him  with  arms  in  their 
hands,  and  again  his  saintly  dignity  came  near  being  enhanced 
by  the  honors  of  martyrdom.1  Even  the  restriction  upon 
second  marriages  was  occasionally  lost  sight  of,  and  such  most 
irregular  unions  were  celebrated  with  all  the  ceremony  and 
rejoicings  that  were  customary  among  laymen  in  their  public 
nuptials.2  Yet,  notwithstanding  the  pious  fervor  which  ha- 
bitually stigmatized  the  wives  as  harlots  and  the  husbands  as 
unbridled  adulterers,  Damiani  himself  allows  us  to  see  that 
the  marriage  relation  was  preserved  with  thorough  fidelity 
on  the  part  of  the  women,  and  was  compatible  with  learning, 
decency,  and  strict  attention  to  religious  duty  by  the  men. 
Urging  the  wives  to  quit  their  husbands,  he  finds  it  necessary 
to  combat  their  scruples  at  breaking  what  was  to  them  a 
solemn  engagement,  fortified  with  all  legal  provisions  and  reli- 
gious rites,  but  which  he  pronounces  a  frivolous  and  mean- 
ingless ceremony.3     So,  in  deploring  the  habitual  practice  of 


1  Aliquando  cum  me  Laudensis  ec-  I  ventum.  epulaturis  etiam  totius  afflu- 
clesiae  tauri  pingues  armata  conspira-  |  entiae  providet  apparatum. — Damiani 


tione  vallarent,  ac  furioso  strepitu  vi- 
tuli  multi  tumultuantes  infrenderent, 
tanquam  ructum   fellis  in  os  meum 


Opusc.  xviii.  Diss.  ii.  c.  6. 

3  Nee  vos  terreat  quod  forte,  non 
evomere  dicentes  «  Habemus  auctori-  dicam  fidei  sed  perfidi*  voa  annulus 
tatem  Triburensis  .  .  .  concilii,  quaa  ;  ^arrhavit  •  q™d  rata  et  mommenta 
promotis  ad  ecclesiasticum  o^^  dotaha  no  anus  quasi  matnmonn  jure 
ineundi    conjugii   tribuat   facultatem    ™»SC"PS *S  <P° djurauie ntum  ad  con 


etc." — Opusc.  xviii.  Diss.  ii.  c.  3. 

2  Obeunte  igitur   pellice,  viduatus 
adjecititerareconjugium.  Quidplura 


firraandam  quodammodo  conjugii  co- 
pulam  utrinque  processit.  Totum  hoc 
quod  videlicet  apud  alios  est  conjugii 
firmamentum,  inter  vos  van um  judi- 


Confcederat  sibi  quasi  tabularum  lege    caturet  frivolum. — Opusc.  xviii.  Diss, 
prostibulum,    amicorum    atque    con-    ii.  c.  7. 
finium  congregat  nuptiali  more  con- ' 


212  PETER   DAMIANI. 

marriage  among  the  Piedmontese  clergy,  he  regards  it  as  the 
only  blot  upon  men  who  otherwise  appeared  to  him  as  a 
chorus  of  angels,  and  as  shining  lights  in  the  church.1 

Such  considerations  as  these,  however,  had  no  influence  in 
diminishing  Damiani's  zeal.'  To  Cunibert,  Bishop  of  Turin, 
whose  spiritual  flock  he  thus  so  much  admired,  he  addressed, 
about  1065,  an  epistle  reproaching  him  with  his  criminal 
laxity  in  permitting  such  transgressions  in  his  diocese,  and 
urging  him  strenuously  to  undertake  the  reform  which  was  so 
necessary  to  the  purity  of  the  church.2  Cunibert  apparently 
did  not  respond  to  the  exhortation,  for  Damiani  proceeded  to 
appeal  to  the  temporal  sovereign  of  Savoy  and  Piedmont, 
Adelaide,  widow  of  Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains,  who  was 
then  regent.  In  an  elaborate  epistle  he  urges  her  to  attack 
the  wives,  while  her  bishops  shall  coerce  the  husbands;  but 
if  the  latter  neglect  that  duty,  he  invites  her  to  interpose 
with  the  secular  power,  and  thus  avert  from  her  house  and 
her  country  the  Divine  wrath  which  must  else  overtake 
them.3  That  so  strict  a  churchman  as  Damiani  should  not 
only  tolerate  but  advise  the  exercise  of  temporal  authority 
over  ecclesiastics,  and  this,  too,  in  a  matter  purely  ecclesi- 
astical, shows  how  completely  the  one  idea  had  become  domi- 
nant in  his  mind,  since  he  was  willing  to  sacrifice  to  it  the 
privileges  and  immunities  for  which  the  church  had  been 
struggling,  by  fair  means  and  foul,  for  six  centuries.  It 
would  appear,  moreover,  that  this  was  not  the  first  time  that 
potentates  had  been  allowed,  or  had  assumed,  to  exercise 
power  in  the  matter,  for  Damiani  cautions  the  Countess  Ade- 
laide not  to  follow  the  example  of  some  evil-minded  magnates 
and  make  the  pretence  of  reformation  an  excuse  for  spoiling 
the  church.4 

The  zeal  of  the  indefatigable  Damiani  continued  to  be  as 
unconquerable  as  the  stubbornness  of  his  adversaries,  and 
some  two  years  later  we  find  him  again  at  work.     The  date 


1  Prsesertim  cum  et  ipsi  cleriei  tui,  |  ecclesiae  videbatur  enitere  senatus.- 
alias  quidem  satis  honesti,  et  littera-  i  Opusc.  xvm.  Diss.  ii.  Praef. 
rum  studiis   Bint  decenter  instruct*.        2  m^  .. 

Qui  dum  ad  me  connuerent,  tanquam  r 

chorus  angelicus  et  velut  conspicuus        3  OpusC.  xvm.  Diss.  iii.  c.  1,  2. 

4  Opusc.  xvm.  Diss.  iii.  c.  3. 


HIS    UNWORLDLINESS.  213 

of  1067  is  generally  attributed  to  a  letter  which  he  addressed 
to  Peter,  Cardinal  Archpriest  of  the  Lateran,  stimulating  him 
to  renewed  exertions  in  extirpating  this  foul  disgrace  to  the 
church,  and  arguing  at  great  length  in  reply  to  the  reasons 
and  excuses  with  which  the  clerical  Benedicks  continued  to 
defend  their  vile  heresy.1 

In  all  this  controversy,  it  is  instructive  to  observe  how 
Damiani  shows  himself  to  be  the  pure  model  of  monkish 
asceticism,  untainted  with  any  practical  wisdom  and  unwarped 
by  any  earthly  considerations.  When  Hildebrand  struggled 
for  sacerdotal  celibacy,  the  shrewdness  of  the  serpent  guided 
the  innocence  of  the  dove,  and  he  fought  for  what  he  knew 
would  prove  a  weapon  of  tremendous  power  in  securing  for 
the  church  the  theocracy  which  was  his  pure  ideal  of  human 
institutions.  Not  a  thought  of  the  worldly  advantages  con- 
sequent upon  the  reform  appears  to  have  crossed  the  mind  of 
Damiani.  To  him  it  was  simply  a  matter  of  conscience  that 
the  ministers  of  Christ  should  be  adorned  with  the  austere 
purity  through  which  alone  lay  the  path  to  salvation.  Ac- 
cordingly the  arguments  which  he  employs  in  his  endless 
disputations  carefully  avoid  the  practical  reasons  which  were 
the  principal  motive  for  enforcing  celibacy.  His  main  reli- 
ance was  on  the  assumption  that,  as  Christ  was  born  of  a 
virgin,  so  he  should  be  served  and  the  Eucharist  be  handled 
only  by  virgins;  and  his  subsidiary  logic  consists  of  extraor- 
dinary mystical  interpretations  of  passages  in  the  Jewish 
history  of  the  Old  Testament.  Phineas,  of  course,  affords  a  ■ 
favorite  and  oft-repeated  argument  and  illustration.  Allu- 
sions to  Abimelech  can  also  be  understood,  but  the  reasoning 
based  upon  the  tower  of  Sichem,  the  linen  girdle  of  Jeremiah, 
and  the  catastrophe  of  Cain  and  Abel  cannot  but  appear  to  us 
as  inconsequential  as  it  doubtless  was  convincing-  to  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  recluse  of  Avellana. 

Notwithstanding  all  his  learning  and  eloquence,  the  au- 
thority of  his  name,  the  lustre  of  his  example,  and  the  tireless 
efforts  of  his  fiery  energy,  the  cause  to  which  he  had  devoted 


Opusc.  xviii.  Diss.  i. 


214 


PETER    DAMIANI 


himself  did  not  advance.  The  later  years  of  Alexander's 
pontificate  afford  unmistakable  indications  that  the  puritan 
party  were  becoming  discouraged;  that  they  were  disposed  to 
abate  some  of  their  demands,  and  were  ready  to  make  conces- 
sions to  the  refractory  spirit  which  refused  obedience  in  both 
principle  and  practice.  Thus,  in  1068,  a  decretal  addressed 
to  the  authorities  of  Dalmatia  merely  threatens  suspension 
until  satisfaction  is  made  by  those  who  marry  in  orders  or 
who  refuse  to  abandon  their  wives.1  A  somewhat  different 
position  was  taken  with  the  Venetians.  An  epistle  to  the 
Patriarch  of  Grado  orders  the  deprivation  of  those  who 
live  in  open  and  undisguised  concubinage,  but  significantly 
confines  its  penalties  to  notorious  infractions  of  the  rule,  and 
leaves  to  God  the  investigation  of  such  as  may  be  prudently 
concealed.2  This  manifests  a  willingness  to  temporize  with 
offenders  whose  respect  for  papal  authority  would  induce 
them  to  abstain  from  defiant  disobedience — a  pusillanimous 
tempting  of  hypocrisy  to  which  the  bolder  Hildebrand  could 
never  have  given  his  consent.  A  principle  of  great  import- 
ance, moreover,  was  abandoned  when,  in  1070,  Alexander 
assented  to  the  consecration  of  the  bishop-elect  of  Le  Mans, 
who  was  the  son  of  a  priest  ;3  and  when  he  stated  that  this 
was  not  a  precedent  for  the  future,  but  merely  a  concession 
to  the  evil  of  the  times,  his  laxity  was  the  more  impressive, 
since  he  thus  admitted  his  violation  of  the  canons.     He  sub- 


1  Si  quis  amodo  episcopus,  presby- 
ter, diaconus  feminam  acceperit,  vel 
acceptam  retinuerit,  proprio  gradu 
decidat,  usque  ad  satisfactionem,  nee 
in  choro  psallentium  maneat,  nee  ali- 
quam  portionem  de  rebus  ecclesiasticis 
habeat.— Alex.  II.  Epist.  125.—  Bat- 
thyani  (Leg.  Eccles.  Hungar.  I.  407) 
remarks  that  this  lenity  arose  from 
the  fact  that  otherwise  divine  service 
would  have  ceased — "  omnes  ecclesia? 
a  divinis  officiis  vacassent." 

It  is  also  observable  that  subdeacons 
are  not  included  in  this  prohibition — 
a  remarkable  exemption,  since  by  this 
time  their  subjection  to  the  law  of 
celibacy  had  become  a  settled  rule  in 
the  Roman  church.  I  may  here  re- 
mark that  I  had  collected  considerable 


material  to  trace  the  varying  practice 
with  regard  to  the  subdiaconate,  but, 
as  it  involves  no  principle,  merely 
depending  in  earlier  times  upon  the 
local  custom  as  to  the  functions  of  that 
grade,  the  discussion  would  scarcely 
repay  the  space  that  it  would  occupy. 

2  De  manifestos  loquimur ;  secre- 
torum  autem  cognitor  et  judex  Deus 
est.— Alex.  II.  Epist.  118.' 

3  Cenomanensem  electum,  pro  eo 
quod  filius  sacerdotis  dicitur,  si  cse- 
terse  virtutes  in  eum  conveniunt,  non 
rejicimus  ;  sed,  suffragantibus  meritis, 
patienter  suscipimus  ;  non  tamen  ut 
hoc  pro  regula  in  posterum  assumatur, 
sed  ad  tempus  ecclesise  periculo  con- 
sulitur. — Gratian.  Dist.  lvi.  c.  13. 


ALEXANDER    II.    RECEDES.  215 

sequently  even  enlarged  this  special  permission  into  a  general 
rule,  with  merely  the  saving  clause  that  the  proposed  incumbent 
should  be  more  worthy  than  his  competitors.1  Alexander, 
moreover,  maintained  in  force  the  ancient  rule  that  no  mar- 
ried man  could  assume  monastic  vows  unless  his  wife  gave 
her  free  consent,  and  entered  a  convent  at  the  same  time.2 
We  shall  see  that  in  little  more  than  half  a  century  the  pro- 
gress of  sacerdotalism  rendered  the  sacrament  of  marriage 
powerless  in  comparison  with  the  vows  of  religion. 

Alexander  clearly  had  not  in  him  the  stuff  of  which  per- 
secutors and  reformers  are  made,  as,  indeed,  his  merciful 
liberality  in  extending  over  the  Jews  throughout  Europe 
the  protection  of  the  Holy  See  would  sufficiently  demon- 
strate. At  length  he,  too,  was  released  from  earthly  cares, 
and  on  the  day  after  his  decease,  on  April  22,  1073,  his  place 
was  filled  by  the  man  who  of  all  others  was  the  most  perfect 
impersonation  of  the  aggressive  churchmanship  of  the  age. 

Before  proceeding,  however,  to  sketch  the  stormy  pontifi- 
cate of  Hildebrand  in  its  relation  to  our  subject,  I.  must 
pause  to  relate  the  episode  of  the  Milanese  clergy.  ■  The 
straggle  in  that  city  to  enforce  the  ascetic  principles  of  the 
reformers  gives  so  perfect  an  inside  view  of  the  reformation 
itself,  and  its  various  stages  have  been  handed  down  to  us 
with  so  much  minuteness  by  contemporary  writers,  that  it 
deserves  to  be  treated  by  itself  as  a  disconnected  whole. 


1  Nam  pro  eo  quod  Alius  sacerdotis  simply  because  he  was  illegitimate, 
dicitur,  si  cfleterse  virtutes  in  eum  con-  although  in  other  respects  admitted 
veniant,  non  rejicimus,  sed  suffragan-  '  to  be  unexceptionable.  (Gregor.  VII. 
tibus  meritis  connivendo,  eum  recipi-  Lib.  n.  Epist.  50.)  We  have  already 
mus. — Alex.  II.  Epist.  133.  Baronius  seen  that  even  amid  the  license  which 
attributes  to  this  the  date  of  1071.        I  prevailed  during  the  early  part  of  the 

The  contrast  between  the  weakness    century,    some    German    bishops    ha- 

of  Alexander  and  the  unbending   ri-    bitually  refused  orders  to  the  sons  of 

gidity   of  his  successor,   Hildebrand,    priests. 

is  well  shown  by  comparing  this  un-  „  AT              .                        ,     . 

t     ..    ,            ,     J      #     •    xi      «      •  2  Neque  vir   in    monasteno  recipi- 

limited  acceptance  of  priestly  offspring  ,           A     •  •              •n>        e      • 

.,,   ,,         e       ,    e .,     i   ,.    •'.       ^      P  endus   est  nisi  uxor  llhus  femineum 

with  the  refusal  ot  the  latter  to  permit  .     .            ,         ..          .           e 

.,       ,        ..         e        ,     ,               f  ,  ,  monastenum    element,    aut    professa 

the  elevation  ot  a  cleric  requested  by  ,.        ..    ,    u..  °       '       e    ,.      .. 

..,,.,.  ,            ,  ,,     tr-        e  a  continentia  habitum  cum  testmatione 

both  his  bishop  and  the  King  of  Aragon,  |  mutaverit;_Alex.  „.  Epist.  112. 


f  L  I  B 

K  A  Li  \ 

u  n  i  v  k 

i:s  [TY   OF 

(    CALIFORNIA. 

XIII. 

MILAN. 

In  the  primitive  ages  of  the  church,  Milan  was  at  the  head 
of  the  Northern  Vicariate  of  Italy,  as  Eome  was  of  the 
Southern.  "When  the  preponderance  of  the  latter  city  be- 
came established,  the  glory  of  St.  Ambrose  shed  a  lustre 
over  his  capital  which  the  true  Milanese  fondly  considered 
as  rivalling  that  of  St.  Peter;  and  the  superiority  of  Eome 
was  grudgingly  admitted.  In  the  eleventh  century,  Milan  is 
found  occupying  the  chief  place  among  the  Lombard  cities, 
virtually  governed  by  its  archbishop,  whose  temporal  as 
well  as  spiritual  power  rendered  his  position  one  of  great 
influence  and  importance.  Yet  even  at  that  early  period,  the 
republican  spirit  was  already  developed,  and  the  city  was 
divided  into  factions,  as  the  nobles  and  citizens  struggled 
for  alternate  supremacy. 

Milan  was  moreover  the  headquarters  of  the  hidden  Mani- 
cheism  which,  after  surviving  centuries  of  persecution  in  the 
East,  was  now  secretly  invading  Europe  through  Bulgaria, 
and  had  already  attracted  the  vigilant  attention  of  the  church 
in  localities  widely  separated.  Its  earliest  open  manifesta- 
tion was  in  Toulouse,  in  1018;  at  Orleans,  in  1023,  King 
Eobert  the  Pious  caused  numerous  sectaries  to  expiate  their 
heresy  at  the  stake,  where  their  unshrinking  zeal  excited 
general  wonder.  At  Cambrai  and  Liege  similar  measures  of 
repression  became  necessary  in  1025 ;  the  Emperor  Henry  III. 
endeavored  at  Goslar,  in  1052,  to  put  an  end  to  them  with 
the  gallows;  and  traces  of  them  are  to  be  found  at  Agen 
about  the  year  1100;  at  Soissons  in  1114;  at  Toulouse  in 
1118;  at  Cologne  in  1146;  at  Perigord  in  1147;  in  England 
in  1166,  until  we  can  trace  their  connection  with  the  Albi- 


CATHARISM. 


217 


genses,  whose  misfortunes  fill  so  black  a  page  in  the  history 
of  the  thirteenth  century.  Calling  themselves  Cathari,  and 
stigmatized  by  true  believers  under  various  opprobrious 
names,  of  which  the  commonest  was  Paterins,  their  doctrines 
were  those  of  the  ancient  Manicheans,  their  most  character- 
istic tenets  being  the  dualistic  principle,  and  the  abhorrence 
of  animal  food  and  of  marriage.1     The  prevalence  of  these 


1  I  think  that  there  is  too  much 
concurrent  testimony  to  this  effect  to 
admit  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
Albigenses  were  Manicheans.  I  may 
possibly  return  to  them  hereafter, 
and  therefore  will  not  discuss  the : 
point  here.  As  regards  the  earlier 
heretics,  however,  I  may  mention  the 
following  contemporary  authorities  : —  , 

With  respect  to  those  of  Toulouse 
and  Orleans,  the  "  Fragmentum   His- 
toriffl  Aquitanise"  (Pithoei  Hist.  Franc,  j 
Script,    p.    82)    says :    "  Eo   tempore 
decern    ex    canonicis    sanctse   crucis 
Aurelianis   probati    sunt    esse   Mani- 
chsei,  quos  rex  Robertus  quum  nollent 
ad  Catholicam  converti  fidem,  igne  cre- 
rnari  jussit.    Simili  modo  apud  Tholo- 
sam    inventi  sunt  Manichsi,  et   ipsi  \ 
igne  cremati  sunt:  et  per  diversas  Oc- 
cidentis  partes  Manichsei   exorti   per  , 
latibula  sese   occultare  coeperuut" —  j 
and  their  errors  are  thus  specified  in  j 
the  "Fragmentum  Hist.  Franc."  (Op. 
oit.  p.  84.)     "  Ii  dicebant  non  posse; 
aliquem  in  baptismate  spiritum  sanc- 
tum suscipere,  et  post  criminale  pec- 
catum  veniam  non  promereri ;  impo- 
sitionem  manuum   nihil    posse    con-  ; 
ferre;  nuptias  spernebant ;  episcopum 
affirmabant  non  posse  ordinare,  &c." 

In  the  Artesian  synod,  held  in  1025 
to  condemn  those  of  Cambrai,  the 
tenth  canon  is  directed  against  their  j 
hostility  to  marriage  (Labbe  et  Coleti 
XI.  1177-S). — See  also  the  prefatory 
letter  of  Gerard,  Bishop  of  Cambrai — 
"  Conjugatos  nequaquam  ad  regnum 
pertinere" — (Hartzheim  Concil.  Ger- 
man. III.  68). 

Concerning  those  executed  at  Gos- 
lar  in  1052 — "  Ibique  quosdam  haere- 
ticos,  inter  alia  pravi  erroris  dogmata 
Manichsea  secta  omnis  esum  animalis 
exsecrantes,  consensu  cunctorum,  ne 
haeretica  scabies  latius  serpens  plures 


inficeret,  in  patibulis  suspendi  jussit." 
Herman.  Contract,  ann.  1052. 

About  1100  Radulphus  Ardens  de- 
scribes the  Manicheans  who  infested 
the  territory  of  Agen,  and  recapitu- 
lates their  doctrines  as  embracing 
dualism,  abhorrence  of  animal  food 
and  of  marriage,  rejection  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  part  of  the  New,  dis- 
belief in  the  Eucharist,  in  baptism 
and  resurrection,  &c. — "  Dicunt  enim 
tantum  flagitium  esse  accedere  ad  ux- 
orem,  quantum  ad  matrem  vel  ad 
filiam."  Radulf.  Ardent.  T.  I.  P.  ii. 
Homil.  19. 

The  council  of  Toulouse,  held  by 
Calixtus  II.  in  1119,  adopted  a  canon 
condemning  those  who  objected  to  the 
Eucharist,  priesthood,  and  legitimate 
marriage,  showing  that  Manicheism 
was  unextinguished  in  Languedoc. — 
Udalr.  Babenb.  Cod.  Lib.  n.  c.  303. 

In  1146  a  synod  at  Cologne  tried 
certain  heretics,  but  before  the  ex- 
amination was  concluded  the  unfor- 
tunates were  seized  by  the  rabble 
and  burned  "  et  quod  magis  mirabile 
est,  ipsi  tormentum  ignis  non  solum 
cum  patientia,  sed  et  cum  lsetitia  in- 
troierunt  et  sustinuerunt."  Their 
Manicheism  is  manifested  by  their 
tenets  concerning  marriage — "Debap- 
I  tismo  nostro  non  curant :  Nuptias 
;  damnant.  ...  In  cibis  suis  vetant 
!  omne  genus  lactis,  et  quod  inde  con- 
i  ficitur,  et  quidquid  ex  coitu  procrea- 
tur." — Narratio  Everwini  Propositi. 
(Hartzheim.  III.  353-4.) 

The  accusations  so  freely  dissemi- 
nated against  them,  for  the  purpose 
of  stirring  up  popular  indignation — 
;  such  as  that  in  their  conventicles, 
after  religious  exercises,  the  lights 
were  extinguished,  and  the  congrega- 
tion abandoned  themselves  to  indis- 
|  criminate    excesses— are,   of    course, 


218 


M  i"  L  A  N" 


dogmas  among  the  Milanese  populace  furnishes  a  probable 
explanation  of  much  that  took  place  during  the  contest  be- 
tween Eome  and  the  married  priests. 

Eriberto  cli  Arzago,  who  filled  the  archiepiscopal  chair  of 
Milan  from  1019  to  1045,  was  one  of  the  most  powerful 
princes  of  Italy,  and  though  unsuccessful  in  the  revolt  which 
he  organized  in  1034  against  the  Emperor  Conrad  the  Salic, 
his  influence  was  scarcely  diminished  after  his  return  from 
the  expulsion  which  punished  his  rebellion.1  At  the  time  of 
his  death,  Milan  was  passing  through  one  of  its  accustomed 
civil  dissensions.  The  Motta,  or  body  of  burgesses,  had 
quarrelled  with  the  nobles  and  archbishop,  and,  under  the 
leadership  of  an  apostate  noble  named  Lanzo,  had  expelled 
them  from  the  city — an  ejection  which  was  revenged  by  an 
unsuccessful  siege  of  three  years.  At  length,  in  1044,  Lanzo 
obtained  promise  of  armed  assistance  from  Henry  III.,  which 
reduced  the  nobles  to  subjection,  and  they  returned  in  peace. 
Eriberto  died  the  following  year,  and  the  election  of  his  suc- 
cessor caused  great  excitement.  Erlembaldo,  the  popular 
chief  (dominus  populi),  called  the  citizens  together  to  nomi- 
nate candidates,  and  induced  them  to  select  four.  One  of 
these  was  Landolfo  Cotta,  a  notary  of  the  sacred  palace,  who 
was  brother  to  Erlembaldo;  another  was  Anselmo  di'Ba- 
dagio,  Cardinal  of  the  Milanese  church,  subsequently  Bishop 
of  Lucca,  and  finally,  as  we  have  seen,  pope,  under  the  name 
of  Alexander  II. ;  the  third  was  Arialdo,  of  the  family  of  the 
capitanei  of  Carinate ;  and  the  fourth  was  Otho,  another 
Milanese  cardinal.  These  four  were  sent  to  the  Emperor,  for 
him  to  make  his  selection;  but  the  faction  of  the  nobles 
despatched  a  rival  in  the  person  of  Guido  di  Yalate,  who 


without  foundation.  It  is  instructive  !  married  a  noble  lady  named  Useria. 
to  observe  that  precisely  the  same  |  Puricelli  (apud  Muratori  Script.  Rer. 
scandals  were  asserted  of  the  early  j  Ital.  V.  122-3)  has  sufficiently  de- 
Christians  (Tertull.  Apologet.  c.  vii.)  !  monstrated  its  improbability.  He 
— so  little  does  human  nature  change  |  does  not,  however,  allude  to  the  argu- 
with  the  lapse  of  centuries.  j  ment    derivable    from   the    fact   that 

1  It  is  scarcely  worth  while  to  more  j  Eriberto's  name  is  signed  to  the  pro- 
than  refer  to  the  assertion  of  medie-  I  ^e!imSs  of  the  couucil  of  Pa™a  in 
val  Milanese  chroniclers  that  Eriberto  I  1022'  wliere  Priestl7  marriage  was  so 

i  severely  condemned. 


SACERDOTAL    MARRIAGE    UNIVERSAL.        219 

already  held  the  appointment  of  secretary  from  the  emperor, 
and  who  had  recommended  himself  by  zealous  services, 
which  now  claimed  their  reward.  Henry  gave  the  coveted 
dignity  to  Guido,  to  the  great  surprise  and  indignation  of  the 
popular  nominees.  Their  expostulations  were  unavailing, 
and  both  parties  returned — Guido  to  assume  an  office  harassed 
by  the  opposition  of  the  people  on  whom  he  had  been  forced, 
and  the  disappointed  candidates  to  brood  over  the  wrongs 
which  had  deprived  them  of  the  splendid  prize.1  How 
thoroughly  three  of  those  candidates  avenged  themselves  we 
shall  shortly  see. 

It  is  observable  from  this  transaction  that  Milan  was  com- 
pletely independent  of  Eome.  The  sovereignty  of  the  distant 
emperor,  absorbed  in  the  dissensions  of  Germany,  could  press 
but  lightly  on  the  powerful  and  turbulent  city.  Eome  was 
not  even*  thought  of  in  creating  the  archbishop,  whose 
spiritual  and  temporal  power  were  granted  by  the  imperial 
investiture.  But  when,  soon  after,  the  German  popes  had 
rescued  the  papacy  from  the  contempt  into  which  it  had  fallen, 
its  domination  over  Milan  became  a  necessary  step  in  its 
progress  to  universal  supremacy,  and  lent  additional  vigor  to 
the  desires  of  the  reformers  to  restore  the  forgotten  discipline 
of  the  church  in  a  city  so  influential. 

Marriage,  at  this  time,  was  a  universal  privilege  of  the 
Milanese  clergy.  If  we  may  believe  the  testimony  of  one 
who  was  almost  a  contemporary,  the  candidate  for  holy  orders 
was  strictly  examined  as  to  his  learning  and  morals.  These 
being  satisfactory,  he  was,  if  unmarried,  asked  if  he  had 
strength  to  remain  so,  and  if  he  replied  in  the  negative,  he  could 
forthwith  betroth  himself  and  marry  with  the  ordinary  legal 
and  religious  ceremonies.  Second  marriages  were  not 
allowed,  and  the  Levitical  law  as  to  the  virginity  of  the 
bride  was  strictly  observed.  Those  who  remained  single 
were  objects  of  suspicion,  while  those  who  performed  their 
sacred  functions  duly,  and  brought  up  their  families  in  the 
fear  of  God,  were  respected  and  obeyed  by  their  flocks  as 


>  Gualvaneo  Flamma,  Chvon.  Mag.  c.  7<J3.— Landulph.  Senior.  Mediolan. 
Hist.  Lib.  III.  c.  2. 


220 


MILAN 


pastors  should  be,  and  were  eligible  to  the  episcopate.  Con- 
cubinage was  regarded  as  a  heinous  offence,  and  those  guilty 
of  it  were  debarred  from  all  promotion1 — in  this  reversing 
the  estimate  placed  upon  the  respective  infractions  of  disci- 
pline by  the  Eoman  church.  ' 


The  see  of  Lucca  consoled  Anselmo  di  Badagio  for  the 
failure  of  his  aspirations  towards  the  archiepiscopate,  but  the 
other  disappointed  candidates  for  a  while  cherished  their 
mortification  in  silence.  Landolfo  and  Arialdo  were  inclined 
to  asceticism,  and  a  visit  which  Anselmo  paid  to  Milan  stimu- 
lated them  to  undertake  a  reform  which  could  not  but  prove 


1  Studiose  singulos  sciscitantes,  si 
cantu,  lectione,  ac  aliis  bonis  moribus 
ornati  fuissent,  necnon  si  essent  sine 
crimine,  si  unius  uxoris  viri,  aut  vir- 
gines,  aut  si  in  virginitate  permanere 
possent,  aut  cum  uxore  degere  vale- 
rent.  Si  autem  in  virginitate,  uxorem 
aliquis  non  habens,  permanere  non 
posse  fateretur  .  .  .  continuo  in  testi- 
monio  bonorum  virorum,  secundum 
legem  liumanam,  licentia  a  pontifice 
accepta,  uxor  tamen  virgo  illi  despon- 
sabatur  ;  unde  Apostolus  "  qui  se  non 
continet  flub  at."  Et  unusquisque,  ex- 
cepta  causa  fornicationis,  suam  ux- 
orem habebat,  qua  accepta,  non  minus 
venerabatur  et  amabatur,  quam  si  sine 
uxore  idem  degeret ;  quoniam  qui 
sine  uxore  vitam  in  sacerdotio  agere 
videbantur,  viris  uxoratis  ordinis  utri- 
usque,  ne  ab  illis  inboneste  circum- 
venirentur,  semper  suspecti  erant. 
Usus  enim  ecclesise  totius,  tam  Latinse 
quam  Grrsecse,  per  tempora  multa  sic 
se  babebat.  Sacerdos  qui  unius  uxoris 
vir  inveniebatur,  ac  suae  domui  ac 
familiae  bene  prot'uisse  a  fidelibus 
compertus  fuisset,  ad  episcopatum 
summa  cum  devotione  multis  fidelibus 
laudantibus,  promovebatur.  Quicun- 
que  enim  ex  clero  concubinarius  in- 
veniebatur, cujuscunque  ordinis  foret, 
ultra  non  promovebatur;  judicantes 
gravissimum  peccatum  esse.  —  Lan- 
dulf.     Senior.  L.  n.  c.  35. 

The  writer  was  a  partisan  of  the 
married  clergy  ;  but  his  description  is 
confirmed  by  the  testimony  which 
Damiani  bears  (ante,  p.  212)  to  the 


good  character  of  the  married  clergy 
of  Savoy.  Still,  there  may  be  some 
truth  in  the  counter  statement  of  an 
opponent,  S.  Andrea  of  Vallombrosa, 
a  disciple  of  S.  Arialdo — "  Nam  alii 
cum  canibus  et  accipitribus  hue 
illucque  pervagantes,  suuui  venationi 

;  lubricse  famulatum  tradebant ;  alii 
vero  tabernarii  et  nequam  villici,  alii 
impii  usurarii  existebant ;  cuncti  fere 
aut  cum  publicis  uxoribus  sive  scortis, 
suam  ignominiose  ducebant  vitam  .  .  . 

!  Universi  sic  sub  simoniaca  hseresi 
tenebantur   impliciti." — Vit.   S.    Ari- 

!  aldi,  c.  i.  No.  7. 

The  Milanese  defended  their  posi- 

j  tion  not  only  by  Scripture  texts,  btit 

j  also  by  a  decision  which  they  affirmed 
was  rendered  by  St.  Ambrose,  to  whom 

I  the  question  of  the  permissibility  of 
sacerdotal  marriage  had  been  referred 

i  by  the  pope  and  bishops.     Of  course 

I  the  story  was  without  foundation,  but, 

!  singularly  enough,  the  Milanese  clung 
to  it  long  after  the  subject  had  ceased 
to  be  open  to  discussion.      Puricelli 

j  has  investigated  the  matter  with  his 
usual     conscientious     industry,    and 

!  shows  the  repetition  of  the  legend 
not  only  by  Datius  and  Landulfus 
Senior  in  the  eleventh  century,  but 
by  Gualvaneo  Flamma  in  the  thir- 
teenth, by  the  author  of  the  Flos 
Florum,  by  Pietro  Agario  and  by  Ber- 
nardino Corio  in  the  fifteenth,  and  by 
Tristano  Calco  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury— the  two  latter  falling  in  conse- 
quence under  the  revision  of  the 
Index.     (Script.  Rer.  Ital.  V.  122-3.) 


COMMENCEMENT    OF    THE    TROUBLES.  221 

a  source  of  endless  trouble  to  their  successful  competitor 
Gruido:  Leaders  of  the  people,  and  masters  of  the  art  of  in- 
flaming popular  passion,  they  caused  assemblies  to  be  held 
in  which  they  inveighed  in  the  strongest  terms  against  the 
irregularities  of  the  clergy,  whose  sacraments  they  stigma- 
tized as  the  foulest  corruption,  whose  churches  they  de- 
nounced as  dens  of  prostitution,  and  whose  property  they 
assumed  to  be  legitimate  prey  for  the  spoiler.  Guido  in  vain 
endeavored  to  repress  the  agitation  thus  produced,  argued  in 
favor  of  the  married  clergy,  and  was  sustained  by  the  party 
of  the  nobles.  In  a  city  like  Milan,  it  was  not  difficult  to 
excite  a  tumult.  Besides  the  influence  of  the  perennial 
factions,  ever  eager  to  tear  each  other's  throats,  the  populace 
were  ready  to  yield  to  the  eloquence  of  the  bold  reformers. 
The  Manichean  heresy  had  taken  deep  root  among  the  masses, 
who,  afraid  to  declare  their  damnable  doctrines  openly,  were 
rejoiced  in  any  way  to  undermine  the  authority  of  the  priest- 
hood, and  whose  views  were  in  accordance  with  those  now 
broached  on  the  subject  of  marriage.1  "While  these  motives 
would  urge  forward  the  serious  portion  of  the  citizens,  the 
unthinking  rabble  would  naturally  be  prompt  to  embrace  any 
cause  which  promised  a  prospect  of  disturbance  and  plunder. 
Party  lines  were  quickly  drawn,  and  if  the  reformers  were 
able  to  revive  a  forgotten  scandal  by  stigmatizing  their  oppo- 
nents as  Nicolites,  the  party  of  the  clergy  and  the  nobles  had 
their  revenge.  The  meetings  of  Landolfo  and  Arialdo  were 
held  in  a  spot  called  Pataria,  whence  they  soon  became  known 
as  Paterins — a  term  which  for  centuries  continued  to  be  of 
fearful  import,  as  synonymous  with  Manicheans.2 


1  Milan  long  retained  its  bad  pre-  infixo   ferro    fomentis    superficialibus 

eminence  as  a  nest  of  heresy.     When  delinire,  et  cicatricem  deforrnani  non 

Frederic  II.,  in  1236,  delayed  his  pro-  medelam   procurare,"    and    Matthew 

mised  crusade  to  subdue  the  rebellious  Paris  calls  Milan  "omnium  haeretico- 

Milanese,  his  excuse  to  the  pope  was  rum,     Paterinorum,     Luciferanorum, 

that  he  ought  not  to  leave  behind  him  Publicanorum,    Albigensium,    Usura- 

unbelievers  worse  than  those  whom  riorum  refugium  ac  receptaculum." — 

he  would  seek  across  the  seas.    "  Cum  '  Hist.  Angl.  aim.  1236. 

.  .  .  jam  zizania  segetes  incipiant  suf- 1      ,    A        ,„    ^     .      .     ,  .        ,,    -,.  , 
„       J  •    •*  *       r*  t  •  Arnulf.  Grest.  Archiep.  Mediolan. 

focare  per  civitates  Italicas,  prsecipue  i  T .,  n       T       ,    ,e   £        T ., 

Mediolanensium,  transire  ad  Sarace-    Lib*  m<  C'  ^— Landulf.  feen.  Lib.  m. 

nos   hostiliter  expuenandos,  et   illos  i  c*  „  .-,  ... 

.  *         •  Ail      Benzo,    the    uncompromising    lm- 

mcorrectos  pertransire,  esset  vulnus  .  ,.  . '    ,  „    , *    ,     .,    °         , 

^  '  ;  penalist,  always  alludes  to  the  papal 


222  MILAN. 

Matters  could  not  long  remain  in  this  condition.  During 
an  altercation  in  the  church  of  San  Celso,  a  hot-headed  priest 
assaulted  Arialdo,  whom  Landolfo  extricated  from  the  crowd 
at  considerable  personal  risk.  Thereupon  the  reformers  called 
the  people  together  in  the  theatre ;  inflammatory  addresses 
speedily  wrought  up  the  popular  passions  to  ungovernable 
fury ;  the  priests  were  turned  out  of  the  churches,  their  houses 
sacked,  their  persons  maltreated,  and  they  were  finally  obliged 
to  purchase  a  suspension  of  oppression  by  subscribing  a  paper 
binding  themselves  to  chastity.  The  nobles,  also  finding  them- 
selves in  danger,,  so  far  from  being  able  to  protec!  the  clergy, 
sought  safety  in  flight ;  while  the  rabble,  having  exhausted 
the  support  derivable  from  intramural  plunder,  spread  over 
the  country  and  repeated  in  the  villages  the  devastations  of 
priestly  property  which  they  had  committed  in  Milan.1 

The  suffering  clergy  applied  for  relief  to  the  bishops  of  the 
province,  and  finding  none,  at  length  appealed  to  Eome  itself. 
Stephen  IX.,  who  then  filled  the  papal  chair,  authorized  the 
archbishop  to  hold  a  synod  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  peace. 
It  met,  in  the  early  part  of  1058,  at  Fontaneto,  near  Novara. 
The  prelates  were  unanimous  in  sustaining  their  clergy,  and 
the  reformers  Landolfo  and  Arialdo  were  excommunicated 
without  a  dissentient  voice.  They  disregarded  the  interdict, 
however,  redoubled  their  efforts  with  the  people,  whom  they 
bound  by  a  solemn  oath  to  adhere  to  the  sacred  cause,  and 
even  forced  the  priests  to  join  in  the  compact.  Arialdo  then 
proceeded  to  Eome,  where  he  developed  in  full  the  objects  of 
the  movement,  and  pointed  out  that  it  would  not  only  result 
in  restoring  purity  and  discipline,  but  might  also  be  used  to 
break  down  the  dangerous  independence  of  the  Ambrosian 
church  and  reduce  it  to  the  subjection  which  it  owed  and  re- 
fused to  the  Apostolic  see.     The  arguments  were  convincing, 


party  when  he  speaks  of  the  Patarini  fino  suo  proprio  consobrino." — Com- 
— that  term  not  having  yet  assumed  ment  de  Ileb.  Henric.  IV.  Lib.  vn.  c. 
the  significance  wbich  it  subsequently  2. — The  latter  accusation  can  no  doubt 
obtained.  He  accuses  Anselmo  di  j  be  set  down  as  one  of  the  baseless 
Badagio  of   being  the  author  of   the  \  scandals  so  freely  cast  from  one  party 

to  the  other  in  those  turbulent  times. 


troubles — "  primitus  Patariam  invenit, 
arcanum  domini  sui  archiepiscopi  cui 
juraverat  inimicis  aperuit.  Abusus  est 
etiam  quadam  monacha,  cum  Landul-  I 


1  Arnulf.  Lib.  in.  c.  10. — Landulf. 
Sen.  Lib.  in.  c.  9. 


DAMIANI    IN    MILAN.  223 

the  excommunication  was  removed,  and  Arialdo  returned  to 
his  work  with  zeal  more  fiery  than  ever.1 

Meanwhile  the  nobles  had  taken  heart  and  offered  armed 
resistance  to  the  Patarian  faction,  resulting  in  incessant  fights 
and  increasing  bloodshed.  Nicholas  II.,  who  by  this  time  had 
succeeded  Stephen  IX.,  sent  Hildebrand  and  Anselmo  di 
Badagio  on  a  mission  to  Milan,  with  instructions  to  allay  the 
passions  which  led  to  such  deplorable  results,  and,  while 
endeavoring  to  uphold  the  rules  of  discipline,  to  pacify  if 
possible  the  people,  and  to  arrange  such  a  basis  of  reconcilia- 
tion as  might  restore  peace  to  the  distracted  church.  The 
milder  Anselmo  might  perhaps  have  succeeded  in  this  errand 
of  charity,  but  the  unbending  Hildebrand  was  not  likely  to 
listen  to  aught  but  unconditional  subjection  to  the  canons  and 
to  Eome.  The  quarrel  therefore  waxed  fiercer  and  deadlier; 
the  turmoil  became  more  inextricable  as  daily  combats  em- 
bittered both  parties,  and  the  missionaries  departed,  leaving 
Guido  with  scarcely  a  shadow  of  authority  over  his  rebellious 
city,  and  the  seeds  of  discord  more  widely  scattered  and  more 
deeply  planted  than  ever.2 

Again,  in  1059,  a  papal  legation  was  sent  with  full  authority 
to  force  the  recalcitrant  clergy  to  submission.  Anselmo 
again  returned  to  his  native  city,  accompanied  this  time  by 
Peter  Damiani.  Their  presence  and  their  pretensions  caused 
a  fearful  tumult,  in  which  Damiani  and  Landolfo  were  in 
deadly  peril.3  An  assembly  was  at  length  held,  where  the 
legates  asserted  the  papal  pre-eminence  by  taking  the  place 
of  honor,  to  the  general  indignation  of  the  Milanese,  who  did 
not  relish  the  degradation  of  their  archbishop  before  the 
representatives  of  a  foreign  prelate.  The  question  in  debate 
hinged  upon  the  authority  of  Eome,  which  was  stoutly  denied 


1  Arnulf.  Lib.  in.  c.  11.  I  peril  must  have  been  serious,  for  even 

*  Tantam  enim  ruinam  et  dissidi.  ;  Landolfo,  whose  nerves  were  seasoned 
um  atque  discOrdiam  pessimam  semi-  i  ^7  constant  civic  strife,  made  a  vow 


narunt  quantam  olim  Naburzadam. — 
Landulf.  Sen.  Lib.  in.  c.  13. 

3  "  Quod  Mediolanensis  civitas  tunc 
in  seditionem  versa, repentinum  utique 
nostrum  minabatur  interitum." — The 


to  become  a  monk  if  he  should  escape 
— his  delay  in  fulfilling  which,  after 
the  danger  was  past,  called  forth  the 
urgent  remonstrances  of  Damiani. — 
Damiani  Opusc.  xlii.  cap.  1. 


224 


MILAN. 


by  the  Lombards.1  Peter,  in  a  long  oration,  showed  that  Eome 
had  christianized  the  rest  of  Western  Europe,  and  that  St. 
Ambrose  himself  had  invoked  the  papal  power  as  superior 
to  his  own.  The  pride  of  the  Ambrosian  church  gave  way, 
and  the  supremacy  of  St.  Peter  was  finally  acknowledged. 
This  granted,  the  rest  followed  as  a  matter  of  course,  and 
the  heretical  errors  of  simony  and  marriage  had  to  be 
abandoned.  Peter  thought  himself  merciful  in  his  triumph  ; 
where  all  alike  were  guilty,  punishment  for  the  past  became 
impossible,  and  he  restricted  himself  to  provisions  for  the 
future.  The  archbishop  and  his  clergy  signed  a  paper  ex- 
pressing their  contrition  in  the  most  humiliating  terms,  and 
binding  themselves  and  their  successors,  under  penalty  of 
eternal  damnation,  to  render  simony  thereafter  unknown.  As 
regards  the  Nicolitan  heresy,  a  significant  caution  was 
observed,  for  its  extirpation  was  only  promised  in  as  far  as 
it  should  be  found  possible  ;2  and  when  Arnolfo,  the  nephew 
of  Guido,  swore  for  his  uncle  that  in  future  monks  should  be 
the  only  persons  ordained  without  a  preliminary  oath  that  no 
money  had  been  paid  or  received,  it  is  observable  that  the 
maintenance  of  chastity  was  discreetly  passed  over.  Then 
the  archbishop  and  his  clergy  swore,  in  the  hands  of  Damiani 
at  the  altar,  their  faithful  observance  of  the  pledge  to  destroy 
the  simoniacal  and  ISTicolitan  heresies,  under  penalties  the 
most  tremendous ;  and  Guido,  prostrating  himself  on  the 
ground,  humbly  deplored  his  negligence  in  the  past,  imposed 
on  himself  a  penitence  of  a  hundred  years  (redeemable  at  a 
certain  sum  per  annum),  and  vowed  a  pilgrimage  to  St.  Iago 
di  Compostella  to  atone  for  his  sin.  Not  content  with  this, 
Damiani  mounted  the  pulpit  and  made  both  priests  and  people 
take  an  oath  to  extirpate  both  heresies ;  and  the  clergy,  before 
being  reconciled  to  the  church  and  restored  to  the  positions 
which  they  had  forfeited  by  their  contumacy,  were  forced 


1  Their  defence  was  "  non  debere 
Ambrosianani  ecclesiam  Romanis  legi- 
bus  subjacere,  nulluraque  judicandi 
vel  disponendi  jus  Romano  pontifici 
in  ilia  sede  competere. — Damiani 
Opusc.  v. 

2  Nicolaitarum  quoque  hseresim  ni- 


hilominus  condemnamus,  et  non  modo 
presbyteros  sed  et  diaconos  et  sub- 
diaconos  ab  uxorum  et  concubinarum 
foedo  consortio,  nostris  studiis,  in 
quantum  nobis  possibilitas  fuerit,  sub 
eodem  quo  supra  testimonio  arcendos 
essepromittimus. — Damiani  Opusc.  v. 


TEMPORARY   SUBMISSION.  225 

individually  under  oath  to  anathematize  all  heresies,  and  espe- 
cially those  of  simony  and  marriage.  A  penance  was  im- 
posed on  every  one  involved  in  simony — no  allusion  being 
made  to  those  who  were  married;  some,  who  were  manifestly 
unfit  for  their  sacred  duties,  were  suspended,  and  the  legates 
returned,  after  accomplishing  the  objects  of  their  mission, 
most  triumphantly.1 

If  Damiani  fancied  that  argumentative  subtlety  and  paper 
promises,  even  though  solemnly  given  in  the  name  of  God 
and  all  his  saints,  were  to  settle  a  question  involving  the 
fiercest  passions  of  men,  the  cloistered  saint  knew  little  of 
human  nature.  The  pride  of  the  Milanese  was  deeply 
wounded  by  a  subjection  to  Eome,  unknown  for  many  gene- 
rations, and  ill  endured  by  men  who  gloried  in  the  ancient 
dignity  of  the  Ambrosian  church.  When,  therefore,  in 
1061,  their  townsman,  Anselmo  di  Badagio,  was  elevated 
from  the  episcopate  of  Lucca  to  that  of  the  Holy  See,  Milan, 
in  common  with  the  rest  of  Lombardy,  eagerly  embraced  the 
cause  of  the  anti-pope  Cadalus.  One  of  Anselmo's  earliest 
acts  as  pope  was  to  address  a  letter  to  the  Milanese,  affec- 
tionately exhorting  them  to  amendment,  and  expressing  a 
hope  that  his  pontificate  was  to  witness  the  extinction  of  the 
heresies  which  had  distracted  and  degraded  the  church.2 
He  could  scarcely  have  entertained  the  confidence  which  he 
expressed,  for  though  Landolfo  and  Arialdo  endeavored, 
with  unabated  zeal,  to  enforce  the  canons,  the  Nicolitan  fac- 
tion, regardless  of  the  pledges  given  to  Damiani,  maintained 
the  contest  with  equal  stubbornness.  Landolfo,  on  a  mission 
to  Eome,  was  attacked  at  Piacenza,  wounded,  and  forced  to 
return.  Soon  after  this  he  was  prostrated  by  a  pulmonary 
affection,  lost  his  voice,  and  died  after  a  lingering  illness  of 
two  years.3     The  Paterins,  thus   deprived   of  their   leader, 


1  Damiani  op.   cit. — Damiani's    ac-        2  Alexand.  II.  Epist.  1. 

count  is  addressed  to  the  pope,  who,  \      •*   TT.    ,  „  ,   .       ,  .     ,.      ., 

,  .     .,  .   ,  u    Jv *  \.  A   I        J   His  followers  claimed  for  him  the 

he  seems  to  think,  may  he  dissatisfied    «.  e  -,  TT 

..,    ,,      i      ..        ,'•  ,J         ...   A  i  honors  of  martyrdom.     He  was  reve- 

with  the  lenity  which  permitted  here- 


tics to  return  to  the  church  on  such 
easy  terms,  and  he  is  at  some  pains 
to  justify  himself  for  his  mildness. 

15 


renced  accordingly,  and  Muratori 
gravely  asserts  that  the  evidence  in 
his  favor  is  indubitable. 


226  MILAN. 

found  another  in  the  person  of  his  brother,  Erlembaldo,  just 
then  returned  from  a  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  Land.  Gifted 
with  every  knightly  accomplishment,  valiant  in  war,  saga- 
cious in  council,  of  a  commanding  presence,  and  endowed 
with  eloquence  to  sway  the  passions  of  the  multitude,  he  was 
the  impersonation  of  a  popular  leader  ;  while,  in  the  cause  to 
which  he  was  now  called,  his  deep  religious  convictions  lent 
an  attraction  which  was  heightened  by  an  unpardonable  per- 
sonal wrong — for,  early  in  life,  he  had  been  betrothed  to  a 
young  girl,  who  fell  under  the  seductive  wiles  of  an  unprin- 
cipled priest.  Yet  Erlembaldo  did  not  embark  in  civil  strife 
without  a  hesitation  which  reflects  honor  on  his  character. 
He  refused,  at  first,  but  was  persuaded  to  seek  counsel  of  the 
pope.  Arialdo  accompanied  him  to  Kome,  and  urged  Alex- 
ander to  adopt  him  as  military  leader  in  the  war  against 
sacerdotal  marriage.  Alexander,  too,  shrank  from  the  re- 
sponsibility of  authorizing  war  in  such  a  cause,  but  Arialdo 
sought  the  assistance  of  Hildebrand,  and  the  scruples  of  the 
pope  were  removed  by  the  prospect  of  asserting  the  authority 
of  Eome.  When  Erlembaldo  heard  the  commands  of  the 
Yicegerent  of  God,  and  received  a  sacred  banner  to  be  borne 
through  the  expected  battles,  he  could  no  longer  doubt  as  to 
his  duty.  Pie  accepted  the  mission,  and  to  it  he  devoted  his 
life.1 

Keturning  to  Milan  with  this  sanction,  the  zeal  and  mili- 
tary experience  of  Erlembaldo  soon  made  themselves  felt. 
He  enrolled  secretly  all  the  young  men  whom  persuasion, 
threats,  or  promises  could  induce  to  follow  his  standard,  and 
thus  supported  by  an  organized  body,  he  endeavored  to  en- 
force the  decretals  inhibiting,  simony  and  marriage.  All 
recalcitrant  priests  presuming  to  officiate  were  torn  from  the 
altars.  The  riots,  which  seem  to  have  ceased  for  a  time, 
became,  with  varying  fortune,  more  numerous  and  alarming 


1  Arnulf.  Lib.  in.  c.  13,  14.— Lan-  i  hibited  incontinent  priests  from  offi- 
dolf.  Sen.  Lib.  in.  c.  13,  14.  |  ciating,  and  bad  ordered  tbe  people 

To  tbis  period  may  probably  be  at-  not  to  attend  at  tbeir  ministrations, 
tributed  two  epistles  of  Alexander  II.  i  He  adds  that  tbose  who  abandon 
(Epist.  93,  94)  to  the  clergy  and  peo-  [  their  functions  to  cleave  to  their 
pie  of  Milan,  informing  both  parties  wives,  must  be  forced  also  to  give  up 
that  a  Roman  synod  had  recently  pro-  I  their  benefices. 


MARTYRDOM    OF    ST.    ARIALDO.  227 

than  ever,  and  the  persecution  of  the  clergy  was  greatly 
intensified.  Guido,  at  length,  after  vainly  endeavoring  to 
uphold  and  protect  the  sacerdotal  body,  was  driven  from  the 
city,  and  the  popular  reformers  seemed  at  last  to  have  carried 
their  point,  after  a  civil  war  which  had  now  lasted,  with 
short  intervals,  for  nearly  ten  years.1 

As  though  to  confirm  the  victory,  Arialdo,  in  1066,  at  a 
council  held  in  Eome,  procured  the  excommunication  of  his 
archbishop,  Guido,  with  which  he  returned  triumphantly  to 
Milan.  Some  popular  revolution  among  the  factions,  how- 
ever, had  brought  Guido  back  to  the  city,  where  he  main- 
tained a  precarious  position.  Disregarding  the  excommuni- 
cation, he  resolved  to  officiate  in  the  solemn  services  of 
Pentecost  (June  4th,  1066),  and,  braving  all  opposition,  he 
appeared  at  the  altar.  Excited  to  fury  at  this  unexpected 
contumacy,  the  popular  party,  led  on  by  Erlembaldo  and 
Arialdo,  attacked  him  in  the  church ;  his  followers  rallied  in 
his  defence,  but,  after  a  stubborn  fight,  were  forced  to  leave 
him  in  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  by  whom  he  was  beaten 
nearly  to  death.  Shocked  by  this  outrage,  many  of  the  citi- 
zens abandoned  the  party  of  the  reformers,  and  the  nobles, 
taking  advantage  of  the  revulsion  of  feeling,  again  had  the 
ascendency.  Arialdo  was  obliged  to  fly  for  his  life,  and 
endeavored  to  conceal  himself,  travelling  only  by  night. 
The  avengers  were  close  upon  his  track,  however;  he  was 
betrayed  by  a  priest,  and  the  satellites  of  Guido  carried  him 
to  an  island  in  Lago  Maggiore,  where  (June  27th,  1066)  they 
put  him  to  death,  with  all  the  refinement  of  cruelty.  A  series 
of  miracles  prevented  the  attempted  concealment  of  the  mar- 
tyred corpse,  and  ten  months  later  Erlembaldo  recovered  it, 
fresh  and  untouched  by  corruption.  Carried  to  Milan,- it  was 
interred  with  stately  pomp  in  the  monastery  of  San  Celso,  where 
the  miracles  wrought  at  his  tomb  proclaimed  the  sanctity  of 
him  who  had  died  for  the  faith,  and  ere  long  his  canonization 
formally  enrolled  St.  Arialdo  among  the  saints  of  Heaven.2 

1  Arnulf.  Lib.  III.  c.  15.— Landulf.  ,  monasteries,  for  Erlembaldo  procured 
Sen.    Lib.    III.    c.    15.— Arnulfus    al-  I  the  forcible  ejection  of  sundry  abbots 
ludes    to   a   dispute   concerning    the  I  appointed  by  Guido. 
litany,  which  complicated  the  quar-  |      2    .        „    ,.,  ,«••»»„ 

rel.     The  troubles  even  invaded  the    T  *  Arnulf.  Lib.  iii.c.l8.-Landulf. 

I  Lib.  in.  c.  29.     In  1090  the  remains 


228 


MILAN 


Erlembaldo  for  a  while  remained  quiet,  but  in  secret  he 
reconstructed  his  party,  and,  undaunted  by  the  fate  of  his 
associate,  he  suddenly  renewed  the  civil  strife.  Successful  at 
first,  he  forced  the  clergy  to  bind  themselves  by  fresh  oaths, 
and  expelled  Guido  again  from  the  city;  but  the  clerical 
party  recovered  its  strength,  and  the  war  was  carried  on 
with  varying  fortune,  until,  in  1067,  Alexander  II.  despatched 
another  legation  with  orders  to  harmonize,  if  possible,  the 
endless  strife.  Cardinals  Mainardo  and  Minuto  appear  to  have 
been  sincerely  desirous  of  reconciling  the  angry  factions. 
They  proclaimed  an  amnesty  and  promulgated  a  constitution 
which  protected  the  clergy  from  abuse  and  persecution,  and 
though  they  decreed  suspension  for  married  and  concubinary 
priests,  they  required  that  none  should  be  punished  on  sus- 
picion, and  laid  down  such  regulations  for  trial  as  gave  great 
prospect  of  immunity.1 

Moderate  men  of  both  parties,  wearied  with  the  unceasing 
strife,  eagerly  hailed  the  accommodation,  and  rejoiced  at  the 
prospect  of  peace.  Erlembaldo,  however,  was  dissatisfied, 
and,  visiting  Rome,  soon  aroused  a  fresh  cause  of  quarrel. 
At  the  suggestion  of  Hildebrand  he  started  the  portentous 
question  of  investitures,  and  on  his  return  he  endeavored  to 
force  both  clergy  and  laity  to  take  an  oath  that  in  future  their 
archbishops  should  apply  to  the  pope,  and  not  to  the  emperor, 


of  St.  Arialdo  were  translated  by  Arch- 
bishop Anselmo  IV.  to  the  church  of 
St.  Denis,  and  Muratori  quotes  from 
Alciati  a  curious  statement  to  the 
effect  that  in  1508  Louis  XII.  removed 
them  to  Paris  in  mistake  for  the  relics 
of  St.  Denis  the  Areopagite,  the  Pa- 
risians in  his  time  still  venerating 
them  as  those  of  the  latter  saint. 

About  the  time  of  Arialdo's  martyr- 
dom, Cremona  must  have  been  won 
over  to  the  cause  of  the  reformers,  for 
in  1066  we  find  Alexander  II.  address- 
ing the  "  religiosis  clericis  et  fidelibus 
laicis"  of  that  city,  thanking  God  that 
they  had  been  moved  to  extirpate  the 
simoniacal  and  Nicolitan  heresies,  and 
commanding  that  in  future  all  those  in 
orders  who  contaminated  themselves 
with  women  should  be  degraded. — 
Alex.  II.  Epist.  36. 


»  Arnulf.  Lib.  m.  c.  18,  19.  There 
must  have  been  pressing  necessity  for 
some  such  regulations,  if  we  may  be- 
lieve the  assertion  of  Landolfo  that 
when  Erlembaldo  found  his  funds  run- 
ning low  he  appointed  thirty  judges 
to  examine  all  ecclesiastics  in  holy 
orders.  Those  who  could  not  procure 
twelve  conjurators  to  swear  with  them 
on  the  Gospels  as  to  their  immaculate 
purity  since  ordination,  had  all  their 
property  confiscated.  At  the  same 
time  the  rabble  used  to  prowl  around 
at  night  and  tbrow  female  ornaments 
and  articles  of  apparel  into  priests' 
houses  ;  then,  breaking  open  the  doors, 
they  would  proclaim  the  criminality 
of  the  inmates,  and  plunder  everything 
that  they  could  lay  their  hands  on. 
(Landulf.  Sen.  Lib.  in.  c.  20.) 


THREE    RIVAL    ARCHBISHOPS.  229 

for  confirmation — thus  securing  a  chief  devoted  to  the  cause 
of  reform.  Guido  sought  to  anticipate  this  movement,  and, 
in  1069,  old  and  wearied  with  the  unending  contention,  he 
resigned  his  archbishopric  to  the  subdeacon  Gotefrido,  who 
had  long  been  his  principal  adviser.  The  latter  procured  his 
confirmation  from  Henry  IV.,  but  the  Milanese,  defrauded  of 
their  electoral  privileges,  refused  to  acknowledge  him.  Er- 
lembaldo  was  not  slow  to  take  advantage  of  the  popular 
feeling;  a  tumult  was  readily  excited,  and  Gotefrido  was  glad 
to  escape  at  night  from  the  rebellious  city.  Guido  added 
fresh  confusion  by  asserting  that  he  had  been  deceived  by 
Gotefrido,  and  by  endeavoring  to  resume  his  see.  To  this  end 
he  made  a  treaty  with  Erlembaldo,  but  that  crafty  chieftain, 
obtaining  possession  of  his  person,  imprisoned  him  in  the 
monastery  of  San  Celso,  and  then  proceeded  to  besiege  Gote- 
frido in  Castiglione.  The  new  archbishop  defended  himself 
bravely,  until,  in  1071,  Erlembaldo  was  forced  to  abandon  the 
enterprise.1 

Meanwhile  another  aspirant,  Azzo,  installed  by  Erlembaldo, 
fared  no  better  than  his  rivals.  The  people,  unbidden  guests, 
rushed  in  to  his  inaugural  banquet,  unearthed  him  in  the 
corner  where  he  had  hidden  himself,  dragged  him  by  the 
heels  into  the  street,  and,  placing  him  in  a  pulpit,  forced  him 
to  swear  that  he  would  make  no  further  pretensions  to  the 
see;  while  the  papal  legate,  who  had  presided  over  the  solem- 
nities, was  glad  to  escape  with  his  life.  Azzo,  however,  was 
recognized  by  Rome ;  he  was  released  from  the  obligation  of 
his  oath,  and  money  was  furnished  to  enable  him  to  maintain 
his  quarrel.  On  the  other  hand,  Henry  IV.  sent  assistance  to 
Gotefrido,  which  enabled  him  to  carry  on  the  campaign  with 
some  vigor ;  but  he  was  unable  to  obtain  a  foothold  in  Milan. 
Azzo  fled  to  Rome,  and  the  city  remained  without  an  arch- 
bishop and  under  an  interdict  launched  in  1074  by  Hilde- 
bra'nd,  who,  in  April,  1073,  had  succeeded  to  Alexander  II.2 

The  Milanese  were  disposed  to  disregard  the  interdict, 
while  Erlembaldo,  who  now  held  undisputed  command  of 


1  Arnulf.  Lib.  in.  c.  19,  20,  21,  22,  I      2  Arnulf.  Lib.  in.  c.  23 ;  Lib.  iv.  c. 
23.— Landulf.  Sen.  Lib.  in.  c.  28.  |  2,  3,  4. 


230  MILAN. 

the  city — and,  indeed,  of  almost  all  Lombardy — used  every 
effort  to  enforce  respect  for  it.  At  length,  at  Easter,  1075, 
he  resolutely  prevented  the  solemnization  of  the  sacred  rites, 
and  cast  out  the  holy  chrism  which  the  priests  had  persisted 
in  preparing.  This  roused  the  populace  to  resistance;  both 
parties  flew  to  arms,  and,  at  the  very  commencement  of  the 
fray,  Erlembaldo  fell  mortally  wounded  under  the  shade  of 
the  papal  banner,  which  was  still  the  emblem  of  his  cause, 
and  in  virtue  of  which  he  was  canonized  as  a  saintly  martyr 
to  the  faith.  The  Milanese,  sinking  all  past  animosities, 
united  in  promptly  sending  an  embassy  to  Henry  TV.  to  con- 
gratulate him  on  the  death  of  the  common  enemy,  and  to 
request  the  appointment  of  another  archbishop.  To  this  he 
responded  by  nominating  Tedaldo,  who  was  duly  consecrated, 
notwithstanding  the  pretensions  of  his  competitors,  Gote- 
frido  and  Azzo.  Tedaldo  was  the  leader  of  the  disaffected 
bishops  who,  at  the  synod  of  Pavia,  in  1076,  excommunicated 
Pope  Gregory  himself;  and  though,  after  the  interview  at 
Canosa,  in  1077,  the  Lombards,  disgusted  with  Henry's  volun- 
tary humiliation  before  that  papal  power  which  they  had 
learned  to  despise,  abandoned  the  imperialists  for  a  time, 
yet  Tedaldo  kept  his  seat  until  his  death  in  1085,  notwith- 
standing the  repeated  excommunications  launched  against 
him  by.  Gregory.' 

In  the  later  years  of  this  long  and  bloody  controversy, 
it  is  evident  that  the  political  element  greatly  complicated 
the  religious  ground  of  quarrel  —  that  pope  and  emperor 
without  made  use  of  burgher  and  noble  within,  and  that 
the  latter  took  sides,  as  respects  simony  and  sacerdotal  mar- 
riage, to  further  the  ends  of  individual  ambition.  Still,  the 
disputed  points  of  discipline  were  the  ostensible  causes  of 
the  struggle,  whatever  might  be  the  private  aims  of  civic 
factions,  or  of  imperial  and  papal  rivals;  and  these  points 
gave  a  keener  purpose  to  the  strife,  and  furnished  inexhausti- 


1  Arnulf.  Lib.  iv.,  Lib.  v.  c.  2,  5,  9.  [  ban  II.  towards  the  end  of  the  cen- 
— Landulf.  Sen.  Lib.  in.  c.  29,  Lib.  iv.-|  tury.  Muratori  (Annal.  aim.  1085) 
c.  2. — Lambert.  Schafnab.  ann.  1077.    styles  Tedaldo  "capo  e  colonna  maes- 

Erlembaldo  was  canonized  by  Ur-  j  tra  degli  Scismatici  di  Lombardia." 


LOMBARDY    SUBMITS   TO    ROME.  231 

ble  recruits  to  each  contending  faction.  Thus,  about  the 
year  1070,  a  conference  took  place  at  Milan  between  priests 
deputed  by  both  sides,  in  which  the  question  of  marriage  was 
argued  as  earnestly  as  though  it  were  the  source  of  all  the 
intestine  troubles.1  So  when,  in  1073,  Gregory,  shortly  after 
his  accession,  addressed  letters  to  Erlembaldo  urging  him  to 
persevere  in  the  good  work,  and  to  the  Lombard  bishops 
commanding  them  to  assist  him,  the  object  of  his  labors  is 
assumed  to  be  the  extirpation  of  simony  and  the  restoration 
of  the  clergy  to  the  purity  becoming  their  sacred  office.2 
And  when,  in  1076,  the  schismatic  bishops,  under  the  lead  of 
Tedaldo  of  Milan,  met  in  council  at  Pavia  to  renounce  all 
obedience  to  Gregory,  one  of  the  articles  of  accusation 
brought  against  him  was,  that  he  separated  husbands  and 
wives,  and  preferred  licentiousness  to  marriage;  thus  giving, 
in  their  grounds  of  complaint  against  him,  especial  promi- 
nence to  his  zeal  for  the  introduction  of  celibacy.3 

Yet  at  last  the  question  of  sacerdotal  marriage  sank  out  of 
sight  when  the  civil  broils  of  Milan  merged  into  the  Euro- 
pean quarrel  between  the  empire  and  papacy.  When,  in 
1093,  Henry  IV.  was  driven  out  of  Italy  by  the  revolt  of  his 
son  Conrad,  and  the  latter  was  created  King  of  Lombardy  by 
Urban  II.  and  the  Countess  Matilda,  the  dependence  of  the 
young  king  upon  the  pope  rendered  impossible  any  further 
open  defiance  of  the  laws  of  the  church,  and  public  marriage 
there,  as  elsewhere,  was  doubtless  replaced  by  secret  immo- 
rality.4 The  triumph  of  the  sacerdotal  party  was  consum- 
mated at  the  great  council  of  Piacenza,  held  by  Urban  II.  in 
February,  1095,  to  which  prelates  flocked  from  every  part  of 

1  Landulf.  Sen.  Lib.   in.  c.  21,  22,  !  ble  a  fragment  of  a  decretal  addressed 


23,  24,  25. 

2  Gregor.  II.  Regist.  Lib.  i.  Epist. 
25,  26,  27. 

3  Maritos    ab     uxoribus     separat 


by  Urban  II.  to  Ansel  mo,  Archbishop 
of  Milan,  giving  him  instructions  as 
to  the  ceremony  of  restoring  to  the 
church  the  ecclesiastics  who  were  to 
be    reconciled    (Ivon.    Decret.  P.    vi. 


scorta  pudicis  conjugibus;  stupra,  in-  |  c.  407— Urbani  II.  Epist.  74)— show- 
cestus,adulteria,  casto  prsefert  connu-    ing  that   Milan    had  submitted,  and 


bio;    populares    adversus  sacerdotes, 
vulgus  adversum  episcopos  concitat. 


that  her  clergy  were  forced  to  seek 
absolution   and  obey  the  canons.     It 


-Comit.  Ticinens.  ami.  1076.   (Gol-  I  was  this  revolution  in  Lombardy  that 
dast.  III.  314.)  J  drove  the  anti-pope  Clement  III.  from 

4  To  this  period  is  no  doubt  refera-  I  Rome- 


232  MILAN. 

Europe,  and  the  people  gathered  in  immense  numbers.  If, 
as  the  chronicler  informs  us,  four  thousand  ecclesiastics  and 
thirty  thousand  laymen  assembled  on  the  occasion,  and  the 
sessions  were  held  in  the  open  air  because  no  building  could 
contain  the  thronging  masses,  we  may  reasonably  attribute 
so  unprecedented  an  assemblage  to  the  wild  religious  ardor 
which  was  about  to  culminate  in  the  first  Crusade.  That 
council  condemned  Nicolitism  in  the  most  absolute  and  per- 
emptory manner,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the 
power  of  so  formidable  a  demonstration  was  lightly  dis- 
regarded.1 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  story  of  Milan  is  an 
exceptional  one.  Perhaps  the  factions  there  were  fiercer, 
and  the  contest  more  prolonged,  than  elsewhere;  but  the 
same  causes  were  at  work  in  other  Italian  cities,  and  were 
attended  with  results  similar  in  character,  if  differing  in  in- 
tensity. In  Lucca,  for  instance,  in  1051,  we  find  Leo  IX., 
when  confirming  the  possessions  of  the  canons  of  the  cathedral 
church  of  St.  Martin,  expressing  the  hope  that  God  would 
liberate  them  from  their  married  priests,  who  dissipated  the 
property  of  the  foundation,  while  utterly  unworthy  of  par- 
taking of  the  divine  oblation.2  His  desire  that  they  would 
live  in  concord  and  harmony  with  their  bishop  was,  however, 
not  destined  to  be  long  gratified.  "When  St.  Anselmo,  in 
1073,  accepted  the  episcopate  at  the  urgent  request  of  his 
friend,  Gregory  VII.,  he  labored  for  years  to  reform  the  dis- 
solute lives  of  his  clergy,  until  at  length  finding  threats  and 
expostulations  alike  ineffectual,  he  implored  the  intervention 
of  the  Countess  Matilda.  Even  the  sovereign  of  Tuscany 
was  unable  to  accomplish  the  submission  of  the  recalcitrant 


1  Item  heresis  Nicolaitarum,  id  est  |  ever,  show  that  Nicolitism  was  still 
incontinentium  subdiaconorum,   dia-  j  an  existing  fact. 

conorum  et  prsecipue  sacerdotum  inre-         z  „.     .  n„     .„ „„  n™.  v«m!m.*«™ 

.  ,  ....      j  ,  i.  j  •  ^t  si  Dominus  Deus  humilitatem 

tractabiliter  damnata  est ,  ut  deinceps    ecclegiffi  gu£e  misericorditer  respiciens 

de  Officio  se  non  intromittant  qui  in  ,  ecclesiam  vestram  ab  uxoratiJ  pres. 

ilia    heresi    manere    non    iormiuant;  i  ,     ,     .       ,  .  ~.       .    .       *v1 

J  ~  .        ,,  ,  '    bytens   et  omnino  a   Dominica  obla- 

nec  populus  eorurn  offioia  ullo  modo  \f        repellendiS)  Hberaverit,  pro  in- 
^ipiat,  si  ipsiNioolaito  contra  h»coe8tig    /  >  immundis' ^nundi 

interdicta    mimstrare  pnesumant. —    _M*i*      „+     '    *        a    T„ TY    t?^:„* 

n.«.M    n*..*.^    .««    ioq^  restituantur,  etc.— S.  Leon.  IX.  Epist. 


Bernald.  Constant,  ami.  1095 

The  very  terms  of  this  canon,  how 


55. 


THE    SCHISMATICS   OF    NORTHERN    ITALY.       233 


ecclesiastics,  and  in  1074  St.  Anselmo  took  advantage  of  the 
presence  of  Gregory  VII.  in  the  city  to  invoke  his  interposi- 
tion. The  resolute  pope,  finding  his  personal  efforts  fruit- 
less, summoned  the  offenders  to  trial  before  a  court  of 
bishops,  presided  over  by  the  celebrated  Pietro  Igneo,  Bishop 
of  Albano.  Being  condemned  and  excommunicated,  they 
resisted  by  force  of  arms,  excited  a  rebellion  in  the  city, 
drove  out  St.  Anselmo,  and  joined  the  imperialists;  and  when, 
in  1081,  Guiberto  the  anti-pope  came  to  Italy,  he  consecrated 
their  leader,  a  sub-deacon  named  Pietro,  as  bishop,  in  place 
of  the  exiled  martyr.1  In  Piacenza,  the  schismatics  were 
guilty  of  excesses  more  deplorable,  for,  not  content  with  de- 
posing Bonizo,  who  had  been  set  over  them  as  bishop,  they 
gave  him  the  fullest  honors  of  martyrdom  by  plucking  out 
his  eyes  and  then  cutting  him  to  pieces.2  Similar  troubles 
occurred  in  Parma,  Modena,  Keggio,  and  Pistoia,  and  it  was 
not  until  the  death  of  their  respective  schismatic  bishops 
that  the  Countess  Matilda  was  able  to  recover  her  authority 
in  those  places. 


1  Vit.  S.  Anselmi  Lucensis. — In  his 
collection  of  canons,  St.  Anselmo  is 
careful  to  accumulate  authorities  jus- 
tifying his  course,  and   condemning 


his  antagonists.— S.  Anselmi  Collect, 
Canon.  Lib.  ix.  c.  2,  4,  5,  7,  8,  10. 

2  Bernald.  Constant,  ann.  1089. 


Ll  J{  U  a  i;  v 

UN  J  V  h'KS  I  TV    OK 

(  ALlH  >.;/>  la. 


XIV. 
HILDEBRAND. 

Alexandee  II.  died  April  2 let,  1073,  and  within  twenty- 
four  hoars  the  Archdeacon  Hildebrand  was  elected  as  his 
successor — a  promptitude  and  unanimity  which  showed  the 
general  recognition  of  his  fitness  for  the  high  office.  For 
more  than  twenty  years  he  had  been  the  power  behind  the 
throne  which  had  directed  and  given  purpose  to  the  policy 
of  Rome,  and  the  assertion  of  his  biographers  that  his  dis- 
inclination for  the  position  had  alone  prevented  his  previous 
elevation  may  readily  be  believed.  Whether  he  was  forced  on 
the  present  occasion  to  assent  to  the  choice  of  the  conclave, 
against  his  earnest  resistance,  is,  however,  more  problematical. 

Hildebrand  was  the  son  of  a  poor  carpenter  of  Soano,  and 
had  been  trained  in  the  ascetic  monachism  of  Cluny.  Gifted 
by  nature  with  rare  sagacity,  unbending  will,  and  indomita- 
ble spirit,  imbued  with  the  principles  of  the  False  Decretals, 
and  firmly  believing  in  the  wildest  pretensions  of  ecclesias- 
tical supremacy,  he  had  conceived  a  scheme  of  hierarchical 
autocracy,  which  he  regarded  not  only  as  the  imprescriptible 
right  of  the  church,  but  also  as  the  perfection  of  human 
institutions.  To  the  realization  of  this  ideal  he  devoted  his 
life  with  a  fiery  zeal  and  unshaken  purpose  that  shrank  from  no 
obstacles,  and  to  it  he  was  ready  to  sacrifice  not  only  the  men 
who  stood  in  his  path,  but  also  the  immutable  principles  of 
truth  and  justice.  All  considerations  were  as  dross  compared 
with  the  one  object,  and  his  own  well-being  and  life  were 
ventured  as  recklessly  as  the  peace  of  the  world. 

Such  a  man  could  comprehend  the  full  importance  of  the 
rale  of  celibacy,  not  alone  as  essential  to  the  ascetic  purity 
of  the  church,  but  as  necessary  to  the  theocratic  structure 
which  he  proposed  to  elevate  on  the  ruins  of  kingdoms  and 


/ 


NECESSITY   OF    CELIBACY. 


235 


empires.  The  priest  must  be  a  man  set  apart  from  his  fellows, 
consecrated  to  the  one  holy  purpose,  reverenced  by  the  world 
as  a  being  superior  to  human  passions  and  frailties,  devoted, 
soul  and  body,  to  the  interests  of  the  church,  and  distracted 
by  no  temporal  cares  and  anxieties  foreign  to  the  welfare 
of  the  great  corporation  of  which  he  was  a  member.  "We 
have  seen  the  strenuous  efforts  which,  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century,  successive  pontiffs  had  unceasingly  made  to  accom- 
plish this  reform,  and  we  have  also  seen  how  fruitlessly  those 
efforts  were  expended  on  the  passive  or  active  resistance  of  the 
priesthood.  When  Gregory  took  the  reins  into  his  vigorous 
grasp,  the  change  at  once  became  manifest,  and  the  zeal  of 
his  predecessors  appears  lukewarm  by  comparison.  He  had 
had  ample  leisure  to  note  how  powerless  was  the  ordinary 
machinery  to  accomplish  the  result,  and  he  hesitated  not  to 
call  to  his  assistance  external  powers;  to  give  to  the  secular 
princes  authority  over  ecclesiastics  at  which  enthusiastic 
churchmen  stood  aghast,  and  to  risk  apparently  the  most 
precious  immunities  of  the  church  to  secure  the  result.  The 
end  proved  his  wisdom,  for  the  power  delegated  to  the  laity 
for  a  special  object  was  readily  recalled,  after  it  had  served  its 
purpose,  and  the  rebellious  clerks  were  subdued  and  rendered 
fit  instruments  in  the  lapse  of  time  for  humiliating  their  tern- ' 
porary  masters. 

To  Gregory,  as  we  must  hereafter  call  him,  was  generally 
attributed,  by  his  immediate  successors,  the  honor  of  intro- 
ducing, or  of  enforcing,  the  absolute  chastity  of  the  ministers 
of  the  altar.  Some  chroniclers  mention  Alexander  II.  or 
Leo  IX.  as  participating  in  the  struggle,  but  to  his  vigorous 
management  its  success  was  popularly  conceded.1    He  earned 


'  Cujus  prudentia,  non  solum  in 
Italia  sed  etiam  in  Theutonicis  parti- 
bus  refrenata  est  saeerdotum  incon- 
tinentia, scilicet  quod  prsedecessores 
ejus  in  Italia  proliibuerunt,hoc  ipse  in 
aliis  ecclesise  catholicse  partibus  pro- 
hibere  studiosus  attemptavit.  —  Ber- 
told.  Constant,  ann.  1073. — Also  Ber- 
nald.  Constant,  ann.  1073. 

Grregorius  .  .  .  connubia  clericorum 
a  subdiaconatu  et  supra,  per  totum 
orbem  Romanum  edicto  decretali,  in 


seternum  probibuit. — Gotefrid.Viterb. 
Chron.  P.  xvn. 

Sed  et  datis  decretis  clericorum  a 
subdiaconatu  et  supra  connubia  in 
toto  orbe  Romano  cohibuit. — Otton. 
Frisingen.  Chron.  Lib.  vi.  c.  34. 

Eodem  quoque  tempore  canones  an- 
tiqui  de  continentia  ministrorum  sacri 
altaris  innovari  novis  accedentibus 
prseceptis  cceperunt,  per  hunc  Urba- 
num  Papain  et  prsedecessores  suos 
Grregorium  VII.  et  Nicholauui  II.  atque 


236 


HILDEBRAND 


the  tribute  thoroughly,  for  during  his  whole  pontificate  it 
seems  to  have  been  ever  present  to  his  thoughts,  and  what- 
ever were  his  preoccupations  in  his  fearful  struggle  with  the 
empire,  on  which  he  risked  the  present  and  the  future  of  the 
papacy,  he  always  had  leisure  to  attend  to  the  one  subject  in 
its  minutest  details  and  in  the  remotest  corner  of  Christendom. 
/^""Perhaps  in  this  there  may  have  been  an  unrecognized  mo- 
tive urging  him  to  action.  Sprung  from  so  humble  an  origin, 
he  may  have  sj^mpathized  with  the  democratic  element,  which 
rendered  the  church  the  only  career  open  to  peasant  and  ple- 
beian. He  may  have  felt  that  this  was  a  source  of  hidden 
power,  as  binding  the  populations  more  closely  to  the 
church,  and  as  enabling  it  to  press  into  service  an  unknown 
amount  of  fresh  and  vigorous  talent  belonging  to  men  who 
would  owe  everything  to  the  establishment  which  had  raised 
them  from  nothingness,  and  who  would  have  no  relationships 
to  embarrass  their  devotion.  All  this  would  be  lost  if,  by 
legalizing  marriage,  the  hereditary  transmission  of  benefices 
inevitably  resulting  should  convert  the  church  into  a  separate 
caste  of  individual  proprietors,  having  only  general  interests 
in  common,  and  lazily  luxuriating  on  the  proceeds  of  former 
popular  beneficence.  To  us,  retrospectively  philosophizing, 
"it  further  appears  evident  that  if  celibacy  were  an  efficient 
agent  in  obtaining  for  the  church  the  immense  temporal  power 
and  spiritual  authority  which  it  enjoyed,  that  very  power  and 
that  authority  rendered  celibacy  a  necessity  to  the  welfare 
of  civilization.  When  even  the  humblest  priest  came  to  be 
regarded  as  a  superior  being,  holding  the  keys  of  heaven  in 
his  hand,  and  by  the  machinery  of  confession  and  absolution 
wielding  incalculable  influence  over  each  member  of  his  flock, 
it  was  well  for  both  parties  that  the  ecclesiastic  should  be  free 
from  the  ties  of  family  and  the  vulgar  ambition  of  race.  It  is 
easy  to  see  how  the  churchmen  could  have  selected  matrimo- 


Alexandrum  II.— Chron.  Reicliersperg. 
aim.  1098. 

Hoc  tamen  ab  eo  tempore  fuit  intro- 
ductum  ut  nullus  ordinaretur  in  pres- 
byteram  conjugatus :  et  ordinandi 
omnes  castitatem  promittere  compel- 
lantur  coram  ordinante. — Chron.  Hir- 
saug.  ann.  1074. 


One  chronicler,  however,  attributes 
the  reform  to  Alexander  II.  "  Con- 
stituit  etiam  ut  nullus  presbyter  sire 
diaconus  vel  subdiaconus,  uxorem  ha- 
beat,  sive  concubinam  in  occidentali 
ecclesia,  sed  ut  sint  casti." — Chron. 
S.  JEgid.  in  Brunswig,  ann.  1071. 


NECESSITY    OF    CELIBACY.  237 

nial  alliances  of  the  most  politic  and  aggrandizing  character; 
and  as  possession  of  property  and  hereditary  transmission  of 
benefices  would  have  necessarily  followed  on  the  permission 
to  marry,  an  ecclesiastical  caste,  combining  temporal  and 
spiritual  power  in  the  most  dangerous  excess,  would  have 
repeated  in  Europe  the  distinctions  between  the  Brahmin  and 
Soudra  of  India.  The  perpetual  admission  of  self-made  men 
into  the  hierarchy,  which  distinguished  the  church  even  in 
times  of  the  most  aristocratic  feudalism,  was  for  ages  the  only 
practical  recognition  of  the  equality  of  man,  and  was  one  of 
the  most  powerful  causes  at  work  during  the  Middle  Ages  to 
render  rational  liberty  eventually  possible  with  advancing 
civilization.  Looking  therefore  upon  the  church  as  an  in- 
strument designed  by  Providence  to  effect  certain  beneficent 
results  in  the  course  of  human  improvement,  we  may  regard 
celibacy  as  a  necessary  element  of  sacerdotalism,  the  abolition 
of  which  would  have  required  the  entire  destruction  of  the 
papal  system  and  the  fundamental  reconstruction  of  ecclesi- 
astical institutions. 

What  we  may  now  readily  discern  to  have  been  a  means, 
to  Gregory,  however,  was  an  end,  and  to  the  enforcement  of 
celibacy  as  necessary  to  that  object  he  devoted  himself  with 
unrelenting  vigor.  The  belief  that  he  was  appointed  of  God, 
and  set  apart  for  the  task  of  cleansing  the  church  of  the  ISTicoli- 
tan  heresy  which  had  defied  his  predecessors  is  well  illustrated 
by  the  contemporary  legend  of  some  pious  Pisans,  who,  spend- 
ing the  night  before  his  election  in  prayer  in  the  basilica  of 
St.  Peter,  saw  that  holy  saint  himself  traverse  the  church 
accompanied  by  Hildebrand,  whom  he  commanded  to  gather 
some  droppings  of  mares  with  which  the  sacred  edifice  was 
defiled,  to  place  them  in  a  sack,  and  to  carry  them  out  on  his 
shoulders.1  The  severe  austerity  of  his  virtue,  moreover,  was 
displayed  by  his  admirers  in  the  story  that  once,  when  danger- 
ously ill,  his  niece  came  to  inquire  as  to  his  health.  To 
relieve  her  anxiety  he  played  with  her  necklace,  and  jestingly 
asked  if  she  wished  to  be  married ;  but  on  his  recovery  he 
found  that  he  could  no  longer  weep  with  due  contrition  over 


Pauli  Bernried.  Vit.  Gregor.  VII.  c.  ii.  §  20. 


238 


HILDEBRAND. 


his  sins,  and  that  he  had  lost  the  grace  of  repentance.  He 
long  and  vainly  searched  for  the  canse,  and  finally  entreated 
his  friends  to  pray  for  him,  when  the  Virgin  appeared  to  one 
of  them,  and  sent  word  to  Gregory  that  he  had  fallen  from 
grace  in  consequence  of  the  infraction  of  his  vows  committed 
in  touching  the  necklace  of  his  niece.1 


His  first  movement  on  the  subject  appears  to  have  been  an 
epistle  addressed  in  November,  1073,  to  Gebhardt  Archbishop 
of  Saltzburg,  taking  him  severely  to  task  for  his  neglect  in 
enforcing  the  canons  promulgated  not  long  before  in  Kome, 
and  ordering  him  to  carry  them  rigidly  into  effect  among  his 
clergy.2  This,  no  doubt,  was  a  circular  letter  addressed  to 
all  the  prelates  of  Christendom,  and  it  was  but  a  preliminary 
step.  Early  in  Lent  of  the  next  year  (March,  1074),  he 
held  his  first  synod,  which  adopted  a  canon  prohibiting 
sacerdotal  marriage,  ordering  that  no  one  in  future  should 
be  admitted  to  orders  without  a  vow  of  celibacy,  and 
renewing  the  legislation  of  Nicholas  II.  which  commanded 
the  people  not  to  attend  the  ministrations  of  those  whose  lives 


were  a  violation  of  the  rule.3 


There  was  nothing  in  the  terms 


'  Pauli  Bernried.  Vit.  Gregor.  VII. 
c.  iii.  §  26. 

Even  Gregory,  however,  was  not 
equal  to  his  contemporary  Hugh, 
Bishop  of  Grenoble,  who,  during  fifty- 
three  years  spent  in  the  active  duties 
of  his  calling,  never  saw  the  face  of  a 
woman,  except  that  of  one  aged  mendi- 
cant. (Rolevink  Fascic.  Temp.  aim. 
1074.) 

The  fanciful  purity  which  came  to 
be  considered  requisite  to  the  episco- 
pal office  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
case  of  Faricius,  Abbot  of  Abingdon, 
who  was  elected  to  the  see  of  Canter- 
bury. His  suffragans  refused  his  con- 
secration because  he  was  a  skilful 
leech — "  tunc  electus  est  Faricius  ad 
archiepiscopatum,  sed  episcopus  Lin- 
colniensis  et  episcopus  Salesburiensis 
obstiterunt,  dicentes  non  debere  archi- 
episcopum  urinasmulierum  inspicere" 
(De  Abbat.  Abbendon. — Chron.  Ab- 
ingdon. II.  287).  The  prejudice  against 
the  practice  of  physic  as  incompatible 
with  the  purity  of  an  ecclesiastic  was 


wide-spread  and  long-lived,  as  chroni- 
cled in  the  canons  of  numerous  coun- 
cils prohibiting  it  (e.  g.  Concil.  Claro- 
mont.  ami.  1130,  c.  5) — but  it  was  not 
always  so.     In  998  Theodatus,  a  monk 
of  Corvey,  received  the  bishopric  of 
Prague  from  Otho  III.  as  a  reward  for 
curing  Boleslas  I.,  Duke  of  Bohemia, 
of  paralysis,  by  means  of  a  bath  of 
wine,  herbs,  spices,  and  three  living 
black  puppies  four  weeks  old  (Paulini 
'  Dissert.  Hist.  p.  198)  ;  and  about  the 
I  year  1200,  Hubert  Walter,  Archbishop 
!  of  Canterbury,  bestowed  the  see  of  St. 
j  David's  on  Geoffrey,  Prior  of  Lanthony, 
j  his  physician,  whose  skill  had  won  his 
|  gratitude. — Girald.  Cambrens.  de  Jur. 
j  et  Stat.  Menev.  Eccles.  Dist.  vn. 

2  Gregor.  VII.  Resist.  Lib.  i.  Eplst. 
30. 

3  Ut  secundum    instituta    antiquo- 
rum  canonum  presbyteri  uxores  non 

i  habeant,  habentes  aut  dimittant  aut 
I  deponantur  ;  nee  quisquam  omnino  ad 
'  sacerdotium   admittatur   qui  non  in 


HIS   FIRST    EFFORTS 


239 


of  this  more  severe  than  what  had  been  decreed  in  innumer- 
able previous  councils — indeed,  it  was  by  no  means  as  threat- 
ening as  many  decretals  of  recent  date;  but  Gregory  was 
resolved  that  it  should  not  remain,  like  them,  a  mere  protest, 
and  he  took  immediate  measures  to  have  it  enforced  wherever 
the  authority  of  Eome  extended. 

The  controversy  as  respects  Italy  has  already  been  so  fully 
described  that  to  dilate  upon  it  further  would  be  superfluous. 
Even  though  Alexander  II.  in  his  later  years  had  shrunk  some- 
what from  the  contest,  yet  from  Naples  to  the  Tyrol  the  ques- 
tion was  thoroughly  understood,  and  its  results  depended  more 
upon  political  revolutions  than  on  ecclesiastical  authority. 
Beyond  the  Alps,  however,  the  efforts  of  preceding  popes  had 
thus  far  proved  wholly  nugatory,  and  on  this  field  Gregory 
now  bent  all  his  energies.  The  new  canon  Was  sent  to  all  the 
bishops  of  Europe,  with  instructions  to  promulgate  it  through- 
out their  respective  dioceses,  and  to  see  that  it  was  strictly 
obeyed ;  while  legates  were  sent  in  every  direction  to  support 
these  commands  with  their  personal  supervision  and  exertion.1 

That  the  course  which  Gregory  thus  adopted  was  essentially 
different  from  that  pursued  by  his  predecessors  is  amply 
attested  by  the  furious  storm  which  these  measures  aroused. 
The  clergy  protested  in  the  most  energetic  terms  that  they 
would  rather  abandon  their  calling  than  their  wives ;  they 
denounced  Gregory  as  a  madman  and  a  heretic,  who  expected 
to  compel  men  to  live  as  angels,  and  who  in  his  folly,  while 
denying  to  natural  affection  its  accustomed  and  proper  gratifi- 
cation, would  open  the  door  to  indiscriminate  licentiousness ; 
and  they  tauntingly  asked  where,  when  he  should  have  driven 
them  from  the  priesthood,  he  expected  to  find  the  angels  who 
were  to  replace  them.2     Gregory  paid  little  heed  to  threats 


perpetuum  continentiarn  vitamque 
ccelibem  profiteatur. — Lambert.  Schaf- 
nab.  (Hersfeldens.)  arm.  1074.  Cf. 
Gregor.  Epist.  Extrav.  4. 

1  As  regards  Germany,  Gregory,  in 
1074,  sent  two  legates  to  Henry  IV., 
who  promulgated  the  canon  in  a  na- 
tional council ;  and  the  next  year  he 
followed  this  up  by  a  legation  em- 
powered   to    forbid    the    laity    from 


attending  the  offices  of  married  priests. 
(Herman.  Contract,  ann.  1074-5.) 
His  correspondence,  however,  shows 
that  he  did  not  rely  alone  on  such 
measures,  but  that  he  also  addressed 
the  prelates  directly. 

2  Adversus  hoc  decretum  protinus 
vehementer  infremuit  tota  factiocleri- 
corum  ;  hominem  plane  hereticum  et 
vesani  dogmatis  esse  clamitans,  qui 


240  HILDEBRAND. 

or  remonstrances,  but  sent  legate  after  legate  to  accuse  the 
bishops  of  their  inertness,  and  to  menace  them  with  depo- 
sition if  they  should  neglect  to  carry  out  the  canon  to  the 
letter. 

The  bishops,  in  fact,  were  placed  in  a  most  embarrassing 
position,  which  may  be  understood  from  the  adventures  of 
three  prelates,  who  took  different  positions  with  regard  to 
the  wishes  of  Gregory — Otho  of  Constance,  who  leaned  to  the 
side  of  the  clergy ;  St.  Altmann  of  Passau,  who  was  an  enthu- 
siastic papalist ;  and  Siegfrid  of  Mainz,  who  was  a  trimmer 
afraid  of  both  parties. 

To  Otho,  Gregory,  in  1074,  sent  the  canons  of  the  synod, 
I  inhibiting  marriage  and  simony,  with  orders  to  use  every 
exertion  to  secure  the  compliance  of  his  clergy.  Otho  appa- 
rently did  not  manifest  much  eagerness  to  undertake  the 
unpopular  task,  and  Gregory  lost  little  time  in  calling  him 
to  account.  Before  the  year  expired,  we  find  the  pope  ad- 
dressing a  second  epistle  to  the  bishop,  angrily  accusing  him 
of  disobedience  in  permitting  the  ministration  of  married 
priests,  and  summoning  him  to  answer  for  his  contumacy  at 
a  synod  to  be  held  in  Rome  during  the  approaching  Lent. 
Nor  was  this  all,  for  at  the  same  time  he  wrote  to  the  clergy 
and  people  of  the  diocese,  informing  them  of  the  disobedience 
of  their  bishop  and  of  his  summons  to  trial,  commanding 
them,  in  case  of  his  persistent  rebellion,  to  no  longer  obey  or 
reverence  him  as  bishop,  and  formally  releasing  them  from 
all  subjection  to  him.  Otho  doubtless  considered  it  impru- 
dent to  show  himself  at  the  synod  of  1075;  consequently  in 
that  of  1076  he  was  excommunicated  and  deprived  of  his 
episcopal  functions.  During  the  autumn  of  the  same  year, 
however,  the  legate  Altmann  of  Passau  restored  him  to  com- 
munion at  Ulm,  but  without  granting  him  the  privilege  of 
officiating.  Otho  disregarded  this  restriction,  and  not  only 
persisted  in  exercising  his  functions,  but  openly  favored  and 


.  .  .  violenta  exactione  homines  conjugium  deserere,  et  tunc  visurum 
vivere  cogeret  ritu  angelorum,  et  dum  i  eum,  cui  homines  sorderent,  unde  gu- 
consuetum  cursum  naturae  negaret,  j  bernandis  per  ecclesiam  Dei  plebibus 
fornicationi  et  immunditise  frena  j  angelos  comparaturus  esset.  —  Lam- 
laxaret.  Quod  si  pergeret  sententiam  ;  bert.  Schafnab.  (Hersfeldens.)  ami. 
confirmare,mallesesaeerdotium  quam  ;  1074. 


THREE   BISHOPS — ALTMANN   OF   PASSAU.       241 

protected  the  married  clergy.  For  this  Gregory  absolved 
his  flock  from  all  obedience  to  him,  whereupon  Otho  aban- 
doned the  Catholic  party  and  formally  joined  the  imperialists, 
who  were  then  engaged  in  the  effort  to  depose  Gregory. 
From  some  motives  of  policy,  the  pope  granted  the  hardened 
sinner  three  years  for  repentance,  at  the  expiration  of  which, 
in  1080,  he  sent  Altmann  to  Constance  to  superintend  the 
election  of  another  bishop.  The  new  incumbent,  however, 
proved  incapable  through  bodily  infirmity;  and,  in  1084, 
Otto  of  Ostia  was  sent  to  Constance,  and  under  his  auspices 
Gebhardt  was  elected  bishop,  and  duly  consecrated  in  1085. 1 
Evidently  Gregory  was  not  a  man  to  abandon  his  purpose, 
and  those  who  opposed  him  could  not  count  upon  perpetual 
immunity. 

St.  Altmann  of  Passau  was  renowned  for  his  piety  and  the 
strictness  of  his  religious  observance.  When  the  canon  of 
1074  reached  him,  he  assembled  his  clergy,  read  it  to  them, 
and  adjured  them  to  pay  to  it  the  respect  which  was  requi- 
site. His  eloquence  was  wasted ;  the  clerks  openly  refused 
obedience,  and  defended  themselves  by  immemorial  custom, 
and  by  the  fact  that  none  of  their  predecessors  had  been  called 
upon  to  endure  so  severe  and  unnatural  a  regulation.  Find- 
ing the  occasion  unpropitious,  the  pious  Altmann  dissembled ; 
he  assured  his  clergy  that  he  was  perfectly  willing  to  indulge 
them  if  the  papal  mandate  would  permit  it,  ,and  with  this  he 
dismissed  them.  He  allowed  the  matter  to  lie  in  abeyance 
until  the  high  feast  of  St.  Stephen,  the  patron  saint  of  the 
church,  which  was  always  attended  by  the  magnates  of  the 
diocese.  Then,  without  giving  warning  of  his  intentions,  he 
suddenly  mounted  the  pulpit,  read  to  the  assembled  clergy 
and  laity  the  letters  of  the  pope,  and  threatened  exemplary 
punishment  for  disobedience.  Though  thus  taken  at  advan- 
tage and  by  surprise,  the  clerks  were  not  disposed  to  submit. 
A  terrible  tumult  at  once  arose,  and  the  crafty  saint  would 
have  been  torn  to  pieces  had  it  not  been  for  the  strenuous 
interference  of  the  nobles,  aided,  as  his  biographer  assures  us, 


1  Gregor.  VII.   Epist.  extrav.  4,  12,   13. — Bernald.   pro   Grebhardo  Episc. 
Apologet.  c.  4,  5,  6,  7. 

16 


242 


HILDEBRAND. 


by  the  assistance  of  God.  The  clergy  continued  their  resist- 
ance, and  when,  not  long  after,  the  empire  and  papacy  became 
involved  in  internecine  strife,  they  sought  the  protection  of 
Henry  IY.,  who  marched  upon  Passau,  and  drove  out  St.  Alt-' 
mann  and  his  faction.  How  unbending  was  this  opposition, 
and  how  successfully  it  was  maintained,  is  manifest  from  the 
fact  that  when  St.  Altmann  at  length  returned  to  his  diocese 
as  papal  legate,  about  the  year  1081,  even  Gregory  felt  it 
necessary  to  use  policy  rather  than  force,  and  instructed  him 
to  yield  to  the  pressure  of  the  evil  times,  and  to  reserve  the 
strict  enforcement  of  the  reform  for  a  more  fortunate  period.^ 
The  political  question  had  thus,  for  the  moment,  over- 
shadowed the  religious  one. 

The  archiepiscopate  of  Mainz  was,  both  temporally  and 
spiritually,  one  of  the  most  powerful  of  the  ecclesiastical 
principalities  of  Germany.  To  the  Archbishop  Siegfrid, 
Gregory  sent  the  canon  of  1074  with  instructions  similar  to 
those  contained  in  his  epistle  to  Otho  of  Constance.  In  reply, 
Siegfrid  promised  implicit  obedience ;  but,  recognizing  the 
almost  insuperable  difficulties  of  the  task  assigned  him,  he 
temporized,  and  gave  his  clergy  six  months  in  which  to  make 
up  their  minds,  exhorting  them  to  render  willing  obedience 
and  relieve  him  from  the  necessity  of  employing  coercion. 
At  the  expiration  of  the  period,  in  October,  1074,  he  assem- 
bled a  synod  at  Erfurt,  where  he  boldly  insisted  that  they 
'  should  give  up  their  wives  or  abandon  their  functions  and 
their  benefices.  Their  arguments  and  entreaties  were  in  vain. 
Finding  him  immovable,  they  retired  for  consultation,  when 
some  proposed  to  separate  and  return  home  at  once,  without 
further  parley,  and  thus  escape  giving  their  sanction  to  the 
new  regulations ;  while  bolder  spirits  urged  that  it  would  be 
better  to  put  the  archbishop  to  instant  death,  before  he  could 
promulgate  so  execrable  a  decree,  thus  leaving  for  posterity 
a  shining  example,  which  would  prevent  any  of  his  successors 
from  attempting  so  abominable  an  enterprise. 

■Siegfrid's  friends  advised   him  of  the  turn  which  affairs 


1  Vit.  S.  Altmanni. — Hinc  capitu- 
lum  illud  de  incontinentia  sacer- 
dotum   a   tarn   invicto  propugnatore 


castitatis    dissiinulatum   non    appro- 
batum  remansit. 


THREE    BISHOPS SI  EG  F  RID    OF    MAINZ.        243 

were  likely  to  take.  He  therefore  sent  to  his  clergy  a  request 
that  they  would  reassemble  in  synod,  promising  that  he 
would  take  the  first  opportunity  to  apply  to  Eome  for  a 
relaxation  of  the  canon.  They  agreed  to  this,  and,  on  meeting 
the  next  day,  Siegfrid  astutely  started  the  question  of  his 
claims  on  the  Thuringian  tithes,  which  had  shortly  before 
been  settled  by  the  Saxon  war.  Indignant  at  this,  the  Thu- 
ringian clergy  raised  a  tumult,  flew  to  arms,  and  the  synod 
broke  up  in  the  utmost  confusion.  In  December,  Gregory 
wrote  to  the  shuffling  archbishop  an  angry  letter,  reproaching 
him  with  his  lukewarmness  in  the  cause,  and  ordering  him  to 
present  himself  at  the  synod  announced  for  the  coming  Lent. 
Siegfrid  obediently  went  to  Eome,  but  was  with  difficulty 
admitted  to  communion.  What  promises  he  made  to  obtain 
it  were  not  kept,  for  again,  in  September,  1075,  Gregory 
addressed  him  with  commands  to  enforce  the  canons.  Stimu- 
lated by  this,  Siegfrid  convoked  a  synod  at  Mainz  in  October, 
where  the  Bishop  of  Coire  appeared  with  a  papal  mandate 
threatening  him  with  degradation  and  expulsion  if  he  failed 
in  compelling  the  priests  to  abandon  either  their  wives  or 
their  ministry.  Thus  goaded,  Siegfrid  did  his  best,  but  the 
whole  body  of  the  clergy  raised  such  a  clamor  and  made 
demonstrations  so  active  and  so  formidable  that  the  arch- 
bishop saw  little  prospect  of  escaping  with  life.  The  danger 
from  his  mutinous  flock  was  more  instant  and  pressing  than 
that  from  the  angry  pope;  his  resolution  gave  way,  and  he 
dissolved  the  synod,  declaring  that  he  washed  his  hands  of 
the  affair,  and  that  Gregory  might  deal  as  he  saw  fit  with  a 
matter  which  was  beyond  his  power  to  control.  Thus  placed 
between  the  upper  and  the  nether  millstone,  it  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at  if  Siegfrid  took  refuge  in  the  party  of  the  im- 
perialists, nor  that  his  name  stands  at  the  head  of  the  list  of 
bishops  who  in  1076  passed  judgment  on  Gregory,  and  pro- 
nounced that  he  had  forfeited  all  claim  to  the  papacy;  neither 
is  it  surprising  that  Gregory  lost  no  time  in  excommunicating 
him  at  the  Koman  synod  of  the  same  year.1 


1  Gregor.  VII.  Epist.  extrav.  12. — 
Lambert.  Schafnab.  ann.  1074-5-6.— 
Udalr.  Babenb.  Cod.  Lib.  n.  c.  132. 


— Gregor.  Regist.  Lib.  n.  Epist.  29. — 
Goldast.  Constit.  Imp.  I.  237. 

An    encyclical    letter    of   Siegfrid, 


244 


HILDEBRAND. 


These  examples  are  sufficient  to  illustrate  the  difficulties 
with  which  Gregory  had  to  contend,  and  the  manner  in  which 
he  endeavored  to  overcome  them.  The  incidents  are  by  no 
means  exceptional,  and  his  marvellous  vigor  and  energy  in 
supervising  the  movement  everywhere,  encouraging  the  zeal- 
ous co-worker  and  punishing  the  lukewarm  and  indifferent, 
are  abundantly  attested  by  his  correspondence.  He  apparently 
had  an  eye  on  every  corner  of  Europe,  and  lost  no  opportunity 
of  enforcing  his  views  with  threats  or  promises,  as  the  case 
might  seem  to  demand.1 

It  did  not  take  long,  however,  to  convince  him  that  he 
could  count  upon  no  efficient  assistance  from  the  hierarchy, 
and  that  if  the  church  was  to  be  purified,  it  must  be  purified 
from  without,  and  not  from  within.  To  the  unutterable  horror 
of  those  strict  churchmen  who  regarded  the  immunity  from 
all  temporal  supervision  or  jurisdiction  as  one  of  the  most 
precious  of  ecclesiastical  privileges,  he  took,  as  early  as  1074, 
the  decided  and  unprecedented  step  of  authorizing  the  laity 
to  withdraw  their  obedience  from  all  prelates  and  priests  who 
disregarded  the  canons  of  the  Holy  See  on  the  subjects  of 
simony  and  incontinence.2  This  principle,  once  adopted,  was 
followed  up  with  his  customary  unalterable  resolution.  In 
October,  1074,  he  wrote  to  a  certain  Count  Albert,  exhorting 
him  not  to  mind  what  the  simoniacal  and  concubinary  priests 
might  say,  but,  in  spite  of  them,  to  persist  in  enforcing  the 
orders  which  emanated  from  Eome.     Still  more  menacing 


in  1075,  states  that  Gregory  had  sent 
to  his  diocese  commissioners  to  reform 
the  immorality  of  the  clergy,  and  that 
they  had  labored  earnestly,  but  fruit- 
lessly, to  accomplish  the  task  by  a 
liberal  use  of  suspension  and  excom- 
munication. He  had  thereupon  re- 
ported to  the  pope  the  scandal  and 
infamy  of  his  church,  when  Gregory, 
considering  the  multitude  of  the  trans- 
gressors, counselled  moderation.  Sieg- 
frid  therefore  orders  all  incorrigible 
offenders  to  be  suspended  and  sent  to 
him  for  judgment.  (HartzheimConcil. 
German.  III.  175.) — Hartzheim  also 
(III.  749)  gives,  under  date  of  1077, 
another  letter  from  Siegfrid  to  Gre- 
gory, in  which  he  promises  to  do  his 


best  in  reforming  the  clergy,  but  ad- 
vises moderation  towards  those  whose 
weakness  merits  compassion. 

1  See,  for  instance,  Lib.  i.  Epist.  30  ; 
Lib.  ii.  Epist.  25,  55,  61,  62,  64,  66,  67, 
68  ;  Lib.  in.  Epist.  4 ;  Lib.  iv.  Epist. 
10,  11,  20 ;  Lib.  vn.  Epist.  1  ;  Epist. 
extrav.  4,  12,  13,  etc. 

2  His  prsecipimus  vos  nullo  modo 
obedire,  vel  eorum  praeceptis  consen- 
tire,  sicut  ipsi  apostolicae  sedis  prae- 
ceptis non  obediunt,  neque  auctoritati 
sanctorum  patrum  consentiunt. — Gre- 
gor.  VII.  Epist.  extrav.  14.  "  Omnibus 
clericis  et  laicis  in  regno  Teutonicorum 
constitutis." 


APPEAL    TO   THE    LAITY. 


245 


was  an  epistle  addressed  in  January,  1075,  to  Eodolf,  Duke  of 
Swabia,  and  Bertolf,  Duke  of  Carinthia,  commanding  them — 
"whatever  the  bishops  may  say  or  may  not  say  concerning 
this,  do  you  in  no  manner  receive  the  ministrations  of  those 
who  owe  promotion  or  ordination  to  simony,  or  whom  you 
know  to  be  guilty  of  concubinage  .  .  .  and,  as  far  as  you  can, 
do  you  prevent,  by  force  if  necessary,  all  such  persons  from 
officiating.  And  if  any  shall  presume  to  prate^  and  say  that 
it  is  not  your  business,  tell  them  to  come  to  us  and  dispute 
about  the  obedience  which  we  thus  enjoin  upon  you;"  adding 
a  bitter  complaint  of  the  archbishops  and  bishops  who,  with 
rare  exceptions,  had  taken  no  steps  to  put  an  end  to  these 
execrable  customs,  or  to  punish  the  guilty.1 

These  extraordinary  measures  called  forth  indignant  de- 
nunciations on  the  part  of  ecclesiastics,  for  these  letters  were 
circulars  sent  to  all  the  princes  on  wnom  he  could  depend, 
and  he  insured  their  publicity  by  causing  similar  orders  to  be 
published  in  the  churches  themselves.2    Yet  Gregory  was  not 


1  Archiepiscopi  et  episcopi  terrae 
vestrse  .  .  .  adhuc  tamen  inobedientes 
(exceptis  perpaucis)  tarn  exsecrandam 
consuetudinem  nulla  studuerunt  pro- 
hibitione  decidere,  nulla  districtione 
punire.  .  .  Quapropter  ad  te  et  ad 
omnes  de  quorum  fide  et  devotione 
confidimus  nunc  convertimur,  rogan- 
tes  vos  et  apostolica  auctoritate  ad- 
monentes  ut  quidquid  episcopi  debinc 
loquantur  aut  taceant,  vos  officium 
eorum  quos  aut  simoniace  promotos 
et  ordinatos  aut  in  crimine  fornica- 
tionis  jacentes  cognoveritis,nullatenus 
recipiatis  :  et  ha?c  eadem  adstricti  per 
obedientiam  tam  in  curia  regis  quam 
per  alia  loca  et  conventus  regni  noti- 
ficantes  ac  persuadentes,  quantum 
potestis,  tales  sacrosanctis  deservire 
mysteriis  etiam  vi,  si  oportuerit,  pro- 
hibeatis.  Si  qui  autem  contra  vos 
quasi  istud  officii  vestri  non  esse  ali- 
quid  garrire  incipiant,hoc  illis  respon- 
dete :  Ut  vestram  et  populi  salutem 
non  impedientes,  de  injuncta  vobis 
obedientia  ad  nos  nobiscum  disputa- 
turi  veniant. — Regist.  Lib.  n.  Epist.  45. 

Letters  conceived  in  the  same  spirit 
are  extant,  addressed  to  the  principal 
laymen  of  Chiusi  in  Tuscany,  to  the 
Count  and  Countess  of  Flanders,  &c. 


(Lib.  ir.  Epist.  47  ;  Lib.  iv.  Epist.  10, 

no 

2  Papae  decretum  enorme  de  conti- 
nentia  clericorum  per  laicos  divulga- 
tur. — Chron.  Augustinens.  ann.  1075. 

Theodoric,  Bishop  of  Verdun,  in  a 
letter  to  Gregory,  bitterly  reproaches 
his  own  folly  in  promulgating  the  de- 
cretal, and  in  not  foreseeing  its  destruc- 
tive result. — "Ac  primo  quidem  faciem 
meam  in  eo  vel  maxime  confusione 
perfundunt,  quod  legem  de  clericorum 
incontinentia  per  laicorum  insanias 
cohibenda  unquam  susceperim  .  .  . 
per  quam  pax  ecclesia,  tranquillitas 
populi  Dei  sublata,  pulcherrima  eccle- 
siastici  ordinis  distinctio  confusa,  fides 
concussa,  tota  denique  magni  patris- 
familias  domus  sedibus  dissectis,  tri- 
cliniis  labefactatis,  vasis  transmutatis, 
omnino  inordinata  et  confusa."  — 
(Martene  et  Durand,  I.  218.)  Theodo- 
ric, be  it  observed,  inclined  to  the  side 
of  Gregory  and  secretly  fled  from  the 
Assembly  of  Utrecht  in  1076  to  avoid 
countenancing  by  his  presence  the 
excommunication  there  pronounced 
against  the  pope. — Hugon.  Flaviniac. 
Chron.  Lib.  n.  ann.  1079. 

So  Henry,  Bishop  of  Speyer,  com- 


246 


HILDEBRAND. 


to  be  diverted  from  his  course,  and  he  was  at  least  successful 
in  rousing  the  Teutonic  church  from  the  attitude  of  passive 
resistance  which  threatened  to  render  his  efforts  futile.  The 
princes  of  Germany,  who  were  already  intriguing  with 
Gregory  for  support  in  their  perennial  revolts  against  the 
sovereign,  were  delighted  to  seize  the  opportunity  of  at  once 
obliging  the  pope,  creating  disturbance  at  home,  and  profiting 
by  the  church  property  which  they  could  manage  to  get  into 
their  hands  by  ejecting  the  unfortunate  married  priests. 
They  accordingly  proceeded  to  exercise,  without  delay  and 
to  the  fullest  extent,  the  unlimited  power  so  suddenly  granted 
them  over  a  class  which  had  hitherto  successfully  defied  their 
jurisdiction;  nor  was  it  difficult  to  excite  the  people  to  join 
in  the  persecution  of  those  who  had  always  held  themselves 
as  superior  beings,  and  who  were  now  pronounced  by  the 
highest  authority  in  the  church  to  be  sinners  of  the  worst 
description.  The  ignorant  populace  were  naturally  captivated 
by  the  idea  of  the  vicarious  mortification  with  which  their 
own  errors  were  to  be  redeemed  by  the  abstinence  imposed 
upon  their  pastors,  and  they  were  not  unreasonably  led  to 
believe  that  thfey  were  themselves  deeply  wronged  by  the 
want  of  purity  in  their  ecclesiastics.  Add  to  this  the  attrac- 
tion which  persecution  always  possesses  for  the  persecutor, 
and  the  license  of  plunder  so  dear  to  a  turbulent  and  barbarous 
age,  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  comprehend  the  motive  power  of 
the  storm  which  burst  over  the  heads  of  the  secular  clergy, 
and  which  must  have  satisfied  by  its  severity  the  stern  soul 
of  Gregory  himself. 

A  contemporary  writer,  whose  name  has  been  lost,  but  who 


plains  to  Gregory — "  Sublata  igitur, 
quantum  in  te  fuit  omni  potestate  ab 
episcopis  .  .  .  omnique  rerum  eccle- 
siasticarum  administratione  plebeio 
furori  per  te  attributa." — Udalr.  Ba- 
benb.  Cod.  Lib.  II.  c.  162. 

And  when  the  bishops  at  the  Diet 
of  Worms  threw  oft"  their  obedience  to 
Gregory,  one  of  the  reasons  enume- 
rated in  Henry's  letter  to  him  is  the 
control  over  the  church  which  he  had 
granted  to  the  laity — "  dum  laicis 
ministerium  eorum  super  sacerdotes 
usurpasti  ut  ipsi  deponant  vei  con- 


teinnaut  quos  ipsi  a  manu  Dei  .  .  . 
docendi  acceperant." — Annalist.  Saxo 
ann.  1076. 

We  have  already  seen  (p.  167)  that 
Nicholas  I.,  in  the  ninth  century,  had 
expressly  forbidden  any  popular  inter- 
ference with  married  priests,  and  it  is 
a  little  singular  to  observe  that  his 
decretal  on  the  subject  is  extracted 
by  Ivo  of  Chartres  (Decreti  P.  n.  cap. 
82)  and  presented  as  valid  law,  in  less 
than  a  generation  after  the  death  of 
Gregory  VII. 


PERSECUTION    OF    THE    CLERGY. 


247 


is  supposed  by  Dom  Martene  to  have  been  a  priest  of  Treves, 
gives  us  a  very  lively  picture  of  the  horrors  which  ensued, 
and  as  he  shows  himself  friendly  in  principle  to  the  reform 
attempted,  his  account  may  be  received  as  trustworthy.  He 
describes  what  amounted  almost  to  a  dissolution  of  society, 
slave  betraying  master  and  master  slave;  friend  informing 
against  friend ;  snares  and  pitfalls  spread  before  the  feet  of 
all ;  faith  and  truth  unknown.  The  peccant  priests  suffered 
terribly.  Some,  reduced  to  utter  poverty,  and  unable  to  bear 
the  scorn  and  contempt  of  those  from  whom  they  had  been 
wont  to  receive  honor  and  respect,  wandered  off  as  homeless 
exiles ;  others,  mutilated  by  the  indecent  zeal  of  ardent  puri- 
tans, were  carried  around  to  exhibit  their  shame  and  misery ; 
others,  tortured  in  lingering  death,  bore  to  the  tribunal  on 
high  the  testimony  of  blood-guiltiness  against  their  perse- 
cutors ;  while  others,  again,  in  spite  of  danger,  secretly  con- 
tinued the  connections  which  exposed  them  to  all  these 
cruelties.  In  the  midst  of  these  troubles,  as  might  be  ex- 
pected, the  offices  of  religion  were  wholly  neglected;  the 
new-born  babe  received  no  holy  baptism ;  the  dying  penitent 
expired  without  the  saving  viaticum  ;  the  sinner  could  cleanse 
his  soul  by  no  confession  and  absolution ;  and  the  devotee 
could  no  longer  be  strengthened  by  the  daily  sacrifice  of  the 
mass.1  Another  writer,  of  nearly  the  same  date,  relates  with 
holy  horror  how  the  laity  shook  off  all  the  obedience  which 
they  owed  to  their  pastors,  and,  despising  the  sacraments  pre- 
pared by  them,  trod  the  Eucharist  under  foot  and  cast  out  the 
sacred  wine,  administered  baptism  with  unlicensed  hands,  and 
substituted  for  the  holy  chrism  the  filthy  wax  collected  from 
their  own  ears.2 

"When  such  was  the  fate  of  the  pastors,  it  is  easy  to  imagine 
the  misery  inflicted  on  their  unfortunate  wives.  A  zealous 
admirer  of  Gregory  relates  with  pious  gratulation,  as  indu- 
bitable evidence  of  divine  vengeance,  how,  maddened  by  their 


1  The  writer  indignantly  adds — "  Si 
auteni  quseris  talis  fructus  a  qua 
radice  pullulaverit,  lex  ad  laicos  pro- 
mulgata,  qua  iinperitis  persuasum  est, 
conjugatorutn   sacerdotum  missas  et 


qusecumque  per  eos  implentur  mysteria 
fugienda  esse,  in  reipublica?  nostrse 
ornatum  illud  adjecit." — Martene  et 
Durand,  I.  230-1. 

2  Sigebert.  Gemblac.  ann.  1074. 


248  HILDEBRAND. 

wrongs,  some  of  them  openly  committed  suicide,  while  others 
were  found  dead  in  the  beds  which  they  had  sought  in  perfect 
health ;  and  this  being  proof  of  their  possession  by  the  devil, 
they  were  denied  Christian  sepulture.  The  case  of  Count 
Manigold  of  Yeringen  affords  a  not  uninstructive  instance  of 
the  frightful  passions  aroused  by  the  relentless  cruelty  which 
thus  branded  them  as  infamous,  tore  them  from  their  families, 
and  cast  them  adrift  upon  a  mocking  world.  The  count  had 
put  in  force  the  orders  of  Gregory  with  strict  severity  through- 
out his  estates  in  the  Swabian  Alps.  One  miserable  creature 
thus  driven  from  her  husband  swore  that  the  count  should 
undergo  the  same  fate,  and,  in  the  blindness  of  her  rage,  she 
poisoned  the  Countess  of  Yeringen,  whose  widowed  husband, 
overwhelmed  with  grief,  sought  no  second  mate.1 

Nor  was  the  customary  machinery  of  miracles  wanting  to 
stimulate  the  zeal  of  the  faithful  in  this  pious  work,  and  to 
convince  the  doubters  whose  worldly  wisdom  or  humanity 
might  shrink  from  the  task  assigned  them.  Unchaste  priests 
at  Mass  would  find  sudden  blasts  of  wind  overturn  the  cup, 
and  scatter  the  sacred  wine  upon  the  ground,  or  the  holy 
wafer  would  be  miraculously  snatched  out  of  their  polluted 
hands.  The  saintly  virgin  Herluca  saw  in  a  vision  the 
Saviour,  with  his  wounds  profusely  bleeding,  and  was  told 
that  if  she  desired  to  escape  a  repetition  of  the  horrifying 
spectacle,  she  must  no  longer  be  present  at  the  ministrations 
of  Father  Eichard,  the  officiating  priest  of  her  convent — a 
revelation  which  she  employed  effectually  upon  him  and  his 
parishioners.  The  same  holy  maiden  being  observed  staring 
intently  out  of  the  window,  declared,  upon  being  questioned, 
that  she  had  seen  the  soul  of  the  priest  of  Eota  carried  off  by 
demons  to  eternal  punishment;  and,  on  sending  to  his  habi- 
tation, it  was  found  that  he  had  expired  at  the  very  moment.2 
Puerile  as  these  tales  may  seem  to  us,  they  were  stern  reali- 
ties to  those  against  whose  weaknesses  they  were  directed, 
and  whose  sufferings  were  thus  enhanced  by  every  art  which 
bigotry  could  bring  to  bear  upon  the  credulous  passions  of  a 
barbarous  populace. 


•  Pauli  Bernried.  Vit.  Gregor.  VII.  I      2  Ibid.  No.  105,  106,  107. 
No.  81,  107. 


RESISTANCE    OF   THE    CLERGY.  249 

It  cannot  be  a  matter  of  surprise  if  men,  who  were  thus 
threatened  with  almost  every  worldly  evil,  should  seek 
to  defend  themselves  by  means  as  violent  as  those  em- 
ployed by  their  persecutors.  Their  cruel  intensity  of  fear 
is  aptly  illustrated  by  what  occurred  at  Cambrai  in  1077, 
where  a  man  was  actually  burned  at  the  stake  as  a  here- 
tic for  declaring  his  adhesion  to  the  Hildebrandine  doc- 
trine that  the  masses  of  simoniacal  and  concubinary  priests 
were  not  to  be  listened  to  by  the  faithful.1  So,  in  the  same 
year,  when  the  pseudo-emperor  Eodolf  of  Swabia  was 
elected  by  the  papalists  at  the  Diet  of  Forcheim  as  a  competi- 
tor to  Henry  IV.,  he  manifested  his  zeal  to  suppress  the  here- 
sies of  avarice  and  lust  by  refusing  the  ministration  of  a 
simoniacal  deacon  in  the  coronation  solemnities  at  Mainz. 
The  clergy  of  that  city,  who  had  so  successfully  resisted,  for 
two  years,  the  efforts  of  their  archbishop  Siegfrid  to  reduce 
them  to  subjection  to  the  canons,  were  dismayed  at  the  pros- 
pect of  coming  under  the  control  of  so  pious  a  prince,  who 
would  indubitably  degrade  them  or  compel  them  to  give  up 
their  wives  and  simoniacally  acquired  churches.  They  there- 
fore stirred  up  a  tumult  among  the  citizens,  who  were  ready 
to  espouse  their  cause;  and  when  Eodolf  left  his  palace  for 
vespers,  he  was  attacked  by  the  people.  The  conflict  was 
renewed  on  his  return,  causing  heavy  slaughter  on  both  sides, 
and  though  the  townsmen  were  driven  back,  Eodolf  was 
forced  to  leave  the  city.2 

This  incident  affords  us  a  glimpse  into  the  political  aspects 
of  the  reform.  In  the  tremendous  struggle  between  the 
empire  and  papacy,  Gregory  allied  himself  with  all  the  dis- 
affected princes  of  Germany,  and  they  were  careful  to  justify 
their  rebellions  under  the  specious  pretext  of  zeal  for  the 
apostolic  church.     They  of  course,  therefore,  entered  heartily 


1  Gregor.    VII.  '  Regist.     Lib.     iv.  j  ecclesiastical  causes.     The  latter,  no 
Epist.  20.  I  doubt,   would  hardly  have  been  effi- 

9  t,     ,.  -n  -j    T7-i    n  tttt   I  cient  without  the  former.    The  efforts 

N  87  vtr?  t  Vi\TGreS°r-  VH;  ;  of  Henry  to  reduce  the  savage  feudal 
No.  87,-Ekkehard  of  Urangen  and  noWeg  f0  order  made  him,  through- 
the  Annahsta  Saxo  however,  m  their  j  Qut   his    rei  favorite   with   the 

accounts  of  these  disturbances,  attn-  j    ...  &   ' 

bute  them  to  political  rather  than  to  I  C 


250  HILDEBRAND. 

into  his  measures  for  the  restoration  of  ecclesiastical  disci- 
pline, and  professed  the  sternest  indignation  towards  those 
whom  he  placed  under  the  bam.  Thus,  after  Henry,  in  1076, 
had  caused  his  bishops  to  declare  the  degradation  of  Gregory, 
when  the  revolted  princes  held  their  assembly  at  Tribur,  and 
in  turn  decreed  the  deposition  of  Henry,  they  used  the  utmost 
caution  to  exclude  all  who  had  communicated  with  Henry 
since  his  excommunication,  together  with  those  who  had  ob- 
tained preferment  by  simony,  or  who  had  joined  in  commu- 
nion with  married  priests.1  The  connection,  indeed,  became 
so  marked  that  the  papalists  throughout  Germany  were  stig- 
matized by  the  name  of  Patarini — a  term  which  had  acquired 
so  sinister  a  significance  in  the  troubles  of  Milan.2  In  this 
state  of  affairs  it  was  natural  that  common  enmities  and  com- 
mon dangers  should  unite  the  persecuted  clergy  and  the 
hunted  sovereign.  Yet  it  •  is  a  curious  illustration  of  the 
influence  which  the  denunciations  of  sacerdotal  marriage  had 
exercised  over  the  public  mind,  that  although  Henry  tacitly 
protected  the  simoniacal  and  married  ecclesiastics,  and  al- 
though they  rallied  around  him  and  afforded  him  unquestion- 
able and  invaluable  aid,  still  he  never  ventured  openly  to 
defend  them.  Writers  both  then  and  since  have  attributed 
the  measure  of  success  with  which  he  sustained  the  fluctu- 
ating contest,  and  the  consequent  sufferings  of  the  unbending 
pope,  to  the  efforts  of  the  recalcitrant  clergy  who  resisted  the 
yoke  imposed  on  them  by  Rome.3  Yet  Henry  had  formally 
and  absolutely  pledged  his  assistance  when  Gregory  com- 
menced his  efforts,  and  had  repeated  the  promise  in  1075; 4 


1  Lambert.  Scbafnab.  arm.  1076. 

2  Hugon.  Flaviniac.  Lib.  n. 

3  Ob  banc  igitur  causam,  quia  sci- 
licet sanctarn  Dei  ecclesiam  castam 
esse  volebat,  liberam  atque  catholi- 
cam,  quia  de  sanctuario  Dei  simonia- 
cam  et  neophytorum  haeresim  et  fe- 
dam  libidinosse  contagionis  pollu- 
tionem  volebat  expellere,  membra 
diaboli  coeperunt  in  eum  insurgere, 
et  usque  ad  sanguinem  pra?sumpse- 
runt  in  eum  manus  injicere. — Hugon. 
Flaviniac.  Lib.  n. 

Eo  vesanise  imperatorem  induxerat 


caeca  sacerdotum  (qui  tunc  frequentes 
apud  eum  erant)  libido.  Timebant 
enim  si  cum  pontifice  in  gratiam  redi- 
ret,  actum  esse  de  concubinis  suis, 
quas  illi  pluris  quam  vel  propriam 
salutem  vel  publiuam  pendebant  bo- 
nestatem.  —  Hieron.  Emser  Vit.  S. 
Bennon.  c.  in.  §  40.* 

Gregory's  celebrated  exclamation 
on  bis  deatb-bed  does  not,  however, 
specially  recognize  tins — "  Dilexi  jus- 
titiam  et  odivi  iniquitatem,  propterea 
morior  in  exilio." 

4  Gregor.  VII.  Regist.  Lib.  i.  Epist. 
30.  Lib.  in.  Epist.  3. 


POLITICAL   ASPECT   OF    THE    REFORM. 


251 


and  from  this  position  he  never  definitely  withdrew.  Even, 
when  the  schismatic  bishops  of  his  party,  at  the  synod  of. 
Brixen,  in  1080,  pronounced  sentence  of  deposition  on  Gre- 
gory, and  filled  the  assumed  vacancy  with  an  anti-pope,  the 
man  whom  they  elected  never  ventured  to  dispute  the  prin- 
ciple of  Gregory's  reforms,  although  the  Lombard  prelates, 
at  that  very  time,  were  warmly  defending  their  married  and 
simoniacal  clergy.1  Indeed,  Guiberto  of  Eavenna,  or  Clement 
III.,  took  occasion  to  express  his  detestation  of  concubinage 
in  language  nearly  as  strong  as  that  of  his  rival,  although  he 
threatened  with  excommunication  the  presumptuous  laymen 
who  should  refuse  to  receive  the  sacraments  of  priests  that 
had  not  been  regularly  tried  and  condemned  at  his  own  papal 
tribunal.2  In  thus  endeavoring  to  place  himself  as  a  shield 
between  the  suffering  priesthood  and  the  persecuting  popu- 
lace, he  was  virtually  striving  to  annul  the  reforms  of  Gre- 
gory, since  in  no  other  way  could  they  be  carried  into  effect : 
but  he  was  forced  to  coincide  with  Gregory  as  to  the  princi- 
ple which  dictated  those  reforms.  Notwithstanding  all  these 
precautions,  however,  the  papalists  were  not  disposed  to 
allow  their  opponents  to  escape  the  responsibility  of  the 
alliance  which  brought  them  so  much  strength  by  dividing 
the  church,  and  no  opportunity  was  lost  of  stigmatizing  them 
for  the  license  which  they  protected.  When  Guiberto  and 
his  cardinals  were  driven  out  of  Eome  in  1084  by  Robert 
Guiscard  and  his  Normans,  the  flying  prelates  were  ridiculed, 


1  According  to  Conrad  of  Ursperg 
(Chron.  ann.  1080)  among  the  reasons 
adduced  for  the  deposition  of  Gregory 
by  the  synod  of  Brixen,  was  "  Qui 
inter  concordes  seminavit  discordiam, 
inter  pacificos  lites,  inter  fratres  scan- 
dala,  inter  conjuges  divortia,  et  quic- 
quid  quiete  inter  pie  viventes  stare 
videbatur,  concussit" — in  which  the 
words  italicized  may  possibly  allude 
to  the  separation  of  the  married 
clergy.  Conrad,  however,  was  a  com- 
piler of  the  thirteenth  century,  and 
Ids  statements  are  not  to  be  received 
without  caution.  If  this  motive  had 
its  weight  with  the  prelates  of  the 
synod,  they  did  not  care  to  publish 
it  to  the  world,  for  there  is  no  allusion 


to  it  in  the  letter  of  renunciation  ad- 
dressed by  them  to  Gregory  (Goldast. 
Const.  Imp.  I.  238)— forming  a  strik- 
ing contrast  to  the  proceedings  of  the 
synod  of  Pavia  in  107(5,  already  al- 
luded to. 


2  Wibert.  Antipap.  Epist.  vi. 
Bishop    Benzo,   the    most  bitter 


or 


imperialists,  did  not  desire  to  be  con- 
founded with  the  Nicolitan  heretics — 
"Omnis    enim    caste    vivens     templum    Dei 

dicitur ; 
Si  quis  tantura  sacramentum  violare  nititur, 
Unus  de  porcorum  grege  protinus  efficitur. 
Facti  coelibes  ardentem  fugiamus  Sodomam  : 
Hierosolymam     petamus,     Christianis     com- 

modiun." 

Comment,  de  Reb.  Hen.  IV.  Lib.  v.  c.  6 . 


252  HILDEBRAND. 

not  for  their  cowardice,  but  for  their  shaven  chins,  and  the 
wives  and  concubines  whom  they  publicly  carried  about 
with  them.1 

At  length  Henry  and  his  partisans  appear  to  have  felt  it 
necessary  to  make  some  public  declaration  to  relieve  them- 
selves from  the  odium  of  supporting  and  favoring  a  practice 
which  was  popularly  regarded  as  a  heresy  and  a  scandal. 
When  the  papalists,  under  their  King  Hermann,  at  the 
Easter  of  1085  (April  20th),  convened  a  general  assembly  of 
their  faction  at  Quedlinburg  and  again  forbade  all  commerce 
with  women  to  those  in  orders,2  the  imperialists  lost  no  time 
in  putting  themselves  on  the  same  record  with  their  rivals. 
Three  weeks  later  Henry  gathered  around  him,  at  Mainz,  all 
the  princes  and  prelates  who  professed  allegiance  to  him,  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  the  succession  to  his  eldest  son,  Conrad, 
as  Kiug  of  Germany,  and  there,  in  that  solemn  diet,  marriage 
was  formally  prohibited  to  the  priesthood.3  Gregory  was 
then  lying  on  his  dying  bed-  in  the  far  off  castle  of  Salerno, 
and  ere  the  news  could  reach  him  he  was  past  the  vanities 
of  earthly  triumph.  Could  he  have  known,  however,  that  the 
cause  for  which  he  had  risked  the  integrity  and  independence 
of  the  church  had  thus  received  the  support  of  its  bitterest 


1  Erant  autem  cives  Romani,uxorati  any  contemporary  authority  for  this 
seu  concubinarii,  barbarasi  et  mitrati  :  assertion,  nor  is  there  any  provision 
mentientes  oratoribus,  et  prsecipue  ,  of  this  nature  in  the  decrees  of  the 
multitudini  rusticangeLongobardorum  i  Diet  as  given  by  Goldastus  (I.  245)  ; 
asserentes  se  cardinales  presbyteros  ;  but  the  chroniclers  of  the  period  were 
esse,  quorum  utique  oblationibus  re-  |  generally  papalist,  and  would  be  apt 
ceptis,  indulgentiam  eis  et  remis- |  to  omit  recording  anything  which  they 
sionem  omnium  peccatorum  ausu  ne-  j  would  deem  so  creditable  to  their  ad- 
fario  impudenter  prsestabant.  —  Hon-  |  versaries.  Yet  that  the  imperialists 
orius  III.  in  Vit.  Gregor.  VII.  No.  15.  j  were  no  longer  held  responsible  for 

2  In  eadem  svnodo  nresbyteris  clerical  irregularities  is  evident  from 
diaconibus,  subdiaconibus,  perpetual  !  %  letter  ^V"  "»?  %  S+teP|le"' 
juxta  decreta  sanctorum  patrum,  in-  j  the  papalist  Bishop  of  Halberstadt,  to 
dicta  est  continentia.-Bernald.  Con-  !  Waltram  of  Magdeburg    who  was  a 

-,  TT  r,     .       ,     A  .      follower  oi  Henry.     In  all  his  violent 

stant.  ad  Herman.  Contract.  Append.    .         ,.  .  J  .    A1       .  .  ..  , 

1085  invectives   against    the    imperialists, 

and  in   his   long   catalogue   of  their 

3  Henricus  multitudinem  sequens,  sins,  he  makes  no  allusion  to  priestly 
accessit  eis  qui  sacerdotum  conjugium  incontinence,  showing  that  they  must 
sublatum  volebant.  Quare  resistentes  have  disavowed  these  irregularities  so 
ei  opinioni  condemnati  sunt.  —  H.  Mu-  formally  as  to  leave  no  ground  for  im- 
tii  German.  Chron.  Lib.  xv.  putations  of  complicity.      (Dodechini 

I  do  not  remember  to  have  met  with    Append,  ad  Mar.  Scot.  ami.  1090.) 


HIS    FINAL    TRIUMPH. 


253 


enemies,  and  that  his  unwavering  purpose  had  thus  achieved 
the  moral  victory  of  forcing  his  adversaries  to  range  them- 
selves under  his  banner,  his  spirit  would  have  rejoiced,  and 
his  confidence  in  the  ultimate  success  of  the  great  theocratic 
system,  for  the  maintenance  of  which  he  was  thus  expiring  in 
exile,  would  have  softened  the  sorrows  of  a  life  which  closed 
in  the  darkness  and  doubt  of  defeat. 


LI  I*  U  A  I.'  V 

C  X  IV  Kits  ITY    OF 


CALIF*  >;.'.slA. 


XV. 
CENTRAL  EUROPE. 

IIildebkand  had  passed  away,  leaving  to  his  successors 
the  legacy  of  inextinguishable  hate  and  unattained  ambition. 
Nor  was  the  reform  for  which  he  had  labored  as  yet  by  any 
means  secured  in  practice,  even  though  his  opponents  had 
been  reduced  to  silence  or  had  been  forced  to  render  a  formal 
adhesion  to  the  dogmas  which  he  had  proclaimed  so  boldly. 

The  cause  of  asceticism,  it  is  true,  had  gained  many  ad- 
herents among  the  laity.  Throughout  Germany,  husbands  and 
wives  separated  from  each  other  in  vast  numbers,  and  devoted 
themselves  to  the  service  of  the  church,  without  taking  vows 
or  assuming  ecclesiastical  garments ;  while  those  who  were 
unmarried  renounced  the  pleasures  of  the  world,  and,  placing 
themselves  under  the  direction  of  spiritual  guides,  abandoned 
themselves  entirely  to  religious  duties.  To  such  an  extent 
did  this  prevail,  that  the  pope  was  applied  to  for  his  sanction, 
which  he  eagerly  granted,  and  the  movement  doubtless  added 
strength  to  the  party  of  reform.1  Yet  but  little  had  thus  far 
been  really  gained  in  purifying  the  church  itself,  notwith- 
standing the  fearful  ordeal  through  which  its  ministers  had 
passed. 

As  for  Germany,  the  indomitable  energy  of  Henry  IV., 
unrepressed  by  defeat  and  unchilled  by  misfortune,  had  at 
length  achieved  a  virtual  triumph  over  his  banded  enemies. 
But  four  bishops  of  the  Empire — those  of  Wurtzburg,  Passau, 
Worms,  and  Constance — owned  allegiance  to  Urban  II.  All 
the  other  dioceses  were  filled  by  schismatics,  who  rendered 
obedience  to  the  antipope  Clement.     In  1089  the  Catholic  or 


Bernald.  Constant,  arm.  1091. 


EFFORTS    OF    URBAN    II. 


255 


papalist  princes  offered  to  lay  down  their  arms  and  do  homage 
to  Henry  if  he  would  acknowledge  Urban  and  make  his  peace 
with  the  true  church.  The  emperor,  however,  had  a  pope 
who  suited  him,  and  he  entertained  too  lively  a  recollection 
of  the  trials  from  which  he  was  escaping  to  open  the  door  to  a 
renewal  of  the  papal  pretensions,  which  he  had  at  length  suc- 
cessfully defied,  nor  would  he  consent  to  stigmatize  his  faithful 
prelates  as  schismatics.1  He  therefore  pursued  his  own  course, 
and  Guiberto  of  Eavenna  enjoyed  the  honors  of  the  popedom, 
checkered  by  alternate  vicissitudes  of  good  and  evil  fortune, 
until  removed  by  death  in  the  year  1100,2  his  sanctity  attested 
by  the  numerous  miracles  wrought  at  his  tomb,  which  only 
needed  the  final  success  of  the  imperialist  cause  to  enrich  the 
calendar  with  a  St.  Clement  in  place  of  a  St.  Gregory  and  a 
St.  Urban.3 

Under  such  auspices,  no  very  zealous  maintenance  of  eccle- 
siastical discipline  was  to  be  expected.  If  Clement's  sensi- 
bilities were  humored  by  a  nominal  reprobation  of  sacerdotal 
marriage,  he  could  scarcely  ask  for  more  or  insist  that  Henry 
should  rekindle  the  embers  of  disaffection  by  enforcing  the 
odious  rules  which  had  proved  so  powerful  a  cause  of  trouble 
to  their  authors  and  his  enemies.  Accordingly,  it  cannot  sur- 
prise us  to  observe  that  Urban  II.,  in  following  out  the  views 
of  his  predecessors,  felt  it  necessary  to  adopt  measures  even 
more  violent  than  those  which  in  Gregory's  hands  had  caused 
so  much  excitement  and  confusion,  but  whose  inefficiency  was 
confessed  by  the  very  effort  to  supplement  them.  In  1089,  the 
year  after  his  consecration,  Urban  published  at  the  council  of 
Melfl  a  decree  by  which,  as  usual,  married  ecclesiastics  were 
sentenced  to  deposition,  and  bishops  who  permitted  such 
irregularities  were  suspended ;  but  where  Gregory  had  been 
content  with  ejecting  husbands  and  wives,  and  with  empower- 
ing secular  rulers  to  enforce  the  edict  on  recalcitrants,  Urban, 
with  a  refinement  of  cruelty,  reduced  the  unfortunate  women 


1  Bernald.  Constant,  ami.  1089. 

2  A  monkish  chronicler  professes  to 
record  of  his  own  knowledge  Guiber- 
to's  death-bed  remorse  for  the  schism 
which  he  had  been  instrumental  in 


causing.  "  Malens,  ut  ab  ore  ipsius 
didicimus,  apostolici  nomen  nunquam 
suscepisse." — Chron.  Reg.  S.  Panta- 
leon.  ann.  1100. 

3  Udalr.  Babenb.  Cod.  Lib.  n.  c.  173. 


256  CENTRAL   EUROPE. 

to  slavery,  and  offered  their  servitude  as  a  bribe  to  the  nobles 
who  should  aid  in  thus  purifying  the  church.1  If  this  in- 
famous canon  did  not  work  misery  so  wide  spread  as  the 
comparatively  milder  decretals  of  Gregory,  it  was  because 
the  power  of  Urban  was  circumscribed  by  the  schism,  while 
he  was  apparently  himself  ashamed  or  afraid  to  promulgate 
it  in  regions  where  obedience  was  doubtful.  When  Pibo, 
Bishop  of  Toul,  in  the  same  year,  1089,  sent  an  envoy  to  ask 
his  decision  on  various  points  of  discipline,  including  sacer- 
dotal marriage  (the  necessity  of  such  inquiry  showing  the 
futility  of  previous  efforts),  Urban  transmitted  the  canons  of 
Melfl  in  response,  but  omitted  this  provision,  which  well  might 
startle  the  honest  German  mind.2  Perhaps,  on  reflection, 
Urban  may  himself  have  wished  to  disavow  the  atrocity,  for  in 
a  subsequent  council,  when  again  attacking  the  ineradicable 
sin,  he  contented  himself  with  simply  forbidding  all  such 
marriages,  and  ordering  all  persons  who  were  bound  by 
orders  or  vows  to  be  separated  from  their  wives  or  concu- 
bines, and  to  be  subjected  to  due  penance.3 

Yet  even  in  those  regions  of  Germany  which  persevered  in 
resisting  Henry  and  in  recognizing  Urban  as  pope,  the  perse- 
cution of  twenty  years  was  still  unsuccessful,  and  the  people 
were  not  yet  aroused  to  a  becoming  sense  of  the  wickedness 
of  their  pastors.  In  an  assembly  held  at  Constance  in  1094, 
it  was  deemed  necessary  to  impose  a  fine  on  all  who  should 
be  present  at  the  services  performed  by  priests  who  had  trans- 


1  Eos  qui  in  subdiaconatu  uxoribus 
vacare  voluerint,  ab  omni  sacro  ordine 
removemus,  officio  atque  beneficio  ec- 
clesise  carere  decernimus.    Quod  si  ab 


si  deprehensus  fuerit,  ordinis  sui 
periculum  sustinebit"  —  shows  how- 
much  more  venial  was  the  offence  of 
promiscuous  licentiousness  than  the 


episcopo    commoniti    non    se    correx-  j  heresy  of  marriage, 
erint,    principibus    licentiam    indul-  !      2  tt  1       ■  tt    t?   ■  +    oa 
genius  ut  eorum  feminas  mancipent  j         urbam  a.  jspiat.  Z4. 
servituti.     Si  vero  episcopi  consense-  |      3  Presbyteris,  diaconis,  subdiaconis 
rint    eorum    pravitatibus,    ipsi    officii    et  monachis  concubinas   habere   seu 
interdictione      mulctentur.  —  Synod,    matrimonia  contrahere  penitus  inter- 
Melfit.  ann.  1809,  can.  12.  dicimus  :     contracta    quoque    matri- 

The  second  canon  of  the  same  j  moniaab  hujusmodi  personis  disjungi 
council — "  Sacrorum  canonum  insti-  !  et  personas  ad  poenitentiam  redigi 
tuta  renovantes,  praecipimus  ut  a  debere,  juxta  sanctorum  canonum 
tempore  subdiaconatus  nulli  liceat  j  diffinitiones  judicamus.  (Gratian. 
carnale  commercium  exercere.    Quod  j  Dist.  xxvu.  c.  8.) 


REBELLION   OF    HENRY   V.  257 

gressed  the  canons.1  "When  this  was  the  case  in  the  Catholic 
provinces,  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  in  the  imperialist  terri- 
tories the  thunders  of  Gregory  and  Urban  had  long  since 
been  forgotten,  and  that  marrying  and  giving  in  marriage 
were  practised  with  as  little  scruple  as  ever.2 

At  length  the  duel  which,  for  more  than  thirty  years,  Henry 
had  so  gallantly  fought  with  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  drew 
to  a  close.  Ten  years  of  supremacy  he  had  enjoyed  in 
Germany,  and  he  looked  forward  to  the  peaceful  decline  of 
his  unquiet  life,  when  the  treacherous  calm  was  suddenly 
disturbed.  Papal  intrigues  in  1093  had  caused  the  parricidal 
revolt  of  his  eldest  born,  the  weak  and  vacillating  Conrad, 
whose  early  death  had  then  extinguished  the  memory  of  his 
crime.  That  unnatural  rebellion  had  gained  for  Eome  the 
North  of  Italy;  and  as  the  emperor's  second  son,  Henry, 
grew  to  manhood,  he,  too,  was  marked  as  a  fit  instrument  to 
pierce  his  father's  heart,  and  to  extend  the  domination  of  the 
church  by  the  foulest  wrongs  that  man  can  perpetrate.  The 
startling  revolution  which  in  1105  precipitated  Henry  from  a 
throne  to  a  prison,  from  an  absolute  monarch  to  a  captive  em- 
bracing the  knees  of  his  son  and  pleading  for  his  wretched 
life,  established  forever  the  supremacy  of  the  papacy  over 
Germany.  The  consequent  enforcement  of  the  law  of  celibacy 
became  only  a  question  of  time. 

As  the  excuse  for  the  rebellion  was  the  necessity  of  re- 
storing the  empire  to  the  communion  of  Eome,  one  of  the  first 
measures  of  the  conspirators  was  the  convocation  of  a  council 
to  be  held  at  Kordhausen,  May  29, 1105,  and  one  of  the  objects 
specified  for  its  action  was  the  expulsion  of  all  married  priests.3 


1  Decret.    Count.     Constant,    c.    2  by  urging  that  fact  as  a  recommenda- 

(Goldast.  I.  246).  tion.  — "  Et    quia    hospes    est,    plus 

,.-...,          ..        Cil           -,.,.  ecclesise  prodest :  non  eum  parentela 

« ■  A  fair  illustration^ the  condition  exhaurie£  non  uberorum  eura  aggra- 

of  the  clergy  is  afforded  by  the  dis-  y&m     nQn    cognatomm    turba     de_ 

cussion    respecting   the    choice    of    a  liet„     (Cosma3     Pragens.     Chron. 

successor  to  Cosmo,  Bishop  of  Prague,  ^  m  ann#  1098)— showing  that  the 


who  died  in  1098.^  Duke  Brecislas, 
in  nominating  his  chaplain  Hermann 
for  the  vacancy,  endeavored  to  rebut 
the  arguments  of  those  who  objected 
to  the  foreign  birth  of  the  appointee 

17 


priesthood    settled    at    home,    as    a 
general  rule,  were  heads  of  families. 

3  Annalista  Saxo,  ann.  1105. 


258 


CENTRAL   EUROPE 


The  council  was  duly  held,  and  duly  performed  its  work  of 
condemning  the  heresy  which  permitted  benefices  to  be  occu- 
pied and  sacred  functions  exercised  by  those  who  were  in- 
volved in  the  ties  of  matrimony.1  Pope  Paschal  II.  was  not 
remiss  in  his  share  of  the  ceremony,  by  which  he  was  to  re- 
ceive the  fruits  of  his  treacherous  intrigues.  The  following 
year  a  great  council  was  held  at  Guastalla,  where,  after  in- 
terminable discussions  as  to  the  propriety  of  receiving  without 
re-ordination  those  who  had  compromised  themselves  or  who 
had  been  ordained  by  schismatics,  he  admitted  into  the  fold 
all  the  repentant  ecclesiastics  of  the  party  of  Henry  IV.2 
The  text  of  the  canon  granting  this  boon  to  the  imperialist 
clergy  bears  striking  testimony  to  the  completeness  of  the 
separation  which  had  existed  between  the  Teutonic  and  the 
Eoman  churches  in  stating  that  throughout  the  empire  scarce 
any  Catholic  ecclesiastics  were  to  be  found.3  It  scarcely 
needed  the  declaration  which  Paschal  made  in  1107  at  the 
synod  of  Troyes,  condemning  married  priests  to  degradation 
and  deprivation,4  to  show  that  the  doctrines  of  Damiani  and 
Hildebrand  were  thenceforth  to  be  the  law  of  the  empire. 

The  question  thus  was  definitely  settled  in  prohibiting  the 
priests  of  Germany  from  marrying  or  from  retaining  the  wives 
whom  they  had  taken  previous  to  ordination.  Settled,  in- 
deed, in  the  rolls  of  parchment  which  recorded  the  decrees  of 
councils  and  the  trading  bargains  of  pope  and  kaiser,  yet 
the  perennial  struggle  continued,  and  the  parchment  roll  for 
yet  awhile  was  powerless  before  the  passions  of  man,  who 
did  not  cease  to  be  man  because  his  crown  was  shaven  and 
his  shoulders  wore  cope  and  stole. 

Cosmo,  who  was  Dean  of  Prague,  who  had  been  bred  to  the 
church,  and  had  been  promoted  to  the  priesthood  in  1099, 
chronicles,  in  1118,  the  death  of  Boseteha,  his  wife,  in  terms 
which  show  that  no  separation  had  ever  occurred  between 
them ;  and  five  years  later  he  alludes  to  his  son  Henry  in  a 


1  "Nycholaitarum  quoque  foniicaria 
commixtio  ibidem  est  ab  omnibus 
abdicata. — Chron.  Reg.  S.  Pantaleon. 
aim.  1105.  Cf.  Aimal.  Saxo,  aim.  1105. 

2  Compare  Bernaldi  Constant,  de 
Reordinatione  vitanda  etc. 


3  Quod  cum  dolore  dicimus,  vix  pauci 
sacerdotes  aut  clerici  Catholici  in  tanta 
terrarum  latitudine  reperiantur.  — 
Aimal.  Saxo,  ann.  1108. 

4  Concil.  Trecens.  ann.  1107,  c.  2 
(Pertz,  Legum  T.  II.  P.  ii.  p.  181). 


BOHEMIA 


259 


manner  to  indicate  that  there  was  no  irregularity  in  such 
relationship,  nor  aught  that  would  cause  him  to  forfeit  the 
respect  of  his  contemporaries  in  acknowledging  it.1  Even 
more  to  the  point  is  the  case  of  a  pious  priest,  his  friend,  who, 
on  the  death  of  his  wife  ("presbytera"),  made  a  vow  that 
he  would  have  no  further  intercourse  with  women.  Cosmo 
relates  that  the  unaccustomed  deprivation  proved  harder  than 
he  had  expected,  and  that  for  some  years  he  was  tortured  with 
burning  temptation.  Finding  at  length  that  his  resolution  was 
giving  way,  he  resolved  to  imitate  St.  Benedict  in  conquering 
the  flesh;  and  having  no  suitable  solitude  for  the  execution 
of  his  purpose,  he  took  a  handful  of  nettles  to  his  chamber, 
where,  casting  off  his  garments,  he  thrashed  himself  so  un- 
mercifully that  for  three  days  he  lay  moribund.  Then  he 
hung  the  nettles  in  a  conspicuous  position  on  his  wall,  that  he 
might  always  have  before  his  eyes  so  significant  a  memento 
and  warning.2  Cosmo's  admiration  for  this,  as  a  rare  and 
almost  incredible  exhibition  of  priestly  virtue  and  fortitude, 
shows  how  few  were  capable  of  even  remaining  widowers, 
while  the  whole  story  proves  that  not  only  the  clergy  were 
free  to  marry,  but  also  that  it  was  only  the  voluntary  vow 
that  prevented  a  second  marriage. 

That  this  state  of  things  was  not  confined  to  the  wild  Bohe- 
mian Marches,  but  obtained  throughout  Germany  in  general, 
is  sufficiently  attested  by  the  fact  that  when  Innocent  II.  was 
driven  out  of  Eome  by  the  Antipope  Anaclet,  and  was  wan- 
dering throughout  Europe  begging  recognition,  he  held,  in 
conjunction  with  the  Emperor  Lothair,  in  1131,  a  council  at 
Liege,  where  he  procured  the  adoption  of  a  canon  prohibiting 
priestly  marriage  or  attendance  on  the  mass  of  married  priests. 
Not  only  does  the  necessity  of  this  fresh  legislation  show  that 
previous  enactments  had  become  obsolete,  but  the  manner  in 
which  these  proceedings  are  referred  to  by  the  chroniclers 
plainly  indicates  that  it  took  the  Teutonic  mind  somewhat  by 
surprise,  and  that  the  efforts  of  Gregory  and  Urban  had  not 


1  Cosmse  Pragensis  Chron.  Lib.  in. 
ann.  1118,  1123. 

Rerum  cunctarum  comes  indirnota  mearum 
Bis  Februi  quinis  obiit  Bosetelia  kalendis. 


2  Ibid.  Lib.  in.  aim.  1125  (Mencken. 
Script.  Rer.  German.  III.  1799). 


260 


CENTRAL    EUROPE. 


only  remained  without  result,  but  had  become  absolutely  for- 
gotten.1 

If  these  proceedings  of  Innocent  had  any  effect,  it  was  only 
to  make  matters  worse.  The  pious  Eupert,  Abbot  of  Duits, 
writing  a  few  years  /  later,  deplores  the  immorality  of  the 
priesthood,  who  not  only  entered  into  forbidden  marriages, 
but,  knowing  them  to  be  illegal,  had  no  scruple  in  disre- 
garding the  tie,  considering  it  to  be,  at  their  pleasure,  devoid 
of  all  binding  force.2  How  little  sympathy,  indeed,  all  efforts 
to  enforce  the  rule  called  forth  is  instructively  shown  by  the 
wondering  contempt  with  which  a  writer,  strictly  papalist  in 
his  tendencies,  comments  upon  the  indiscreet  reformatory  zeal 
of  Meinhard,  Archbishop  of  Treves.  Elevated  to  this  lofty 
dignity  in  1128,  he  at  once  undertook  to  force  his  clergy  to 
obey  the  rule  by  the  most  stringent  measures,  and  speedily 
became  so  odious  that  he  was  obliged  to  leave  his  bishopric 
within  the  year ;  and  the  chronicler  who  tells  the  story  has 
only  words  of  reprobation  for  the  unfortunate  prelate.3 


Hungary  had  been  Christianized  at  a  time  when  the  obli- 
gation of  celibacy  was  but  lightly  regarded,  though  it  had 
not  as  yet  become  obsolete.  In  reducing  the  dreaded  and  bar- 
barous Majjars  to  civilization,  the  managers  of  the  movement 


1  Statuitur  et  hoc  semper  memora- 
bile,  secundum  decreta  cauonum,  pres- 
byteros parochianos  castos  et  sine 
uxoribus  esse  debere :  uxorati  vero 
presbyteri  missam  a  nemine  audien- 
dam  esse. — Aimal.  Bosoviens.  ann. 
1131. 

Statuitur  quoque  ab  omnibus,  se- 
cundum decreta  canonum,  illud  anti- 
quum, quod  semper  erit  innovandum, 
presbyteros  castos  et  sine  uxoribus 
esse,  missam  autem  uxorati  presbyteri 
neminem  audire  debere. — Cliron.  San- 
petrin.  Erfurt,  ann.  1131. 

Statuitur  etiam  hoc  semper  memora- 
bile,  per  decreta  canonum  presbyteros 
parrochianos  castos  et  sine  uxoribus 
esse  debere,  uxorati  vero  presbyteri 
missam  a  nemine  audiendam  esse. — 
Chron.  Pegaviens.  continuat.  ann. 
1131. 

2  Deterius   eo  proruunt,   imitantes 


connubia  quoties  volunt,  et  qui  nul- 
lum habent  torum  licitum,  dum  sic 
evagantur,  nullum  confidunt  rupisse 
conjugii  vinculum ;  fornicantur  autem 
cum  illis,  et  initiantur  Belphegor,  qui- 
cumque  exemplo  talium  ad  incesta  vel 
adulteria  audaciores  fiunt. — Ruperti 
Tuitens.  Comment,  in  Apocalyps.  Lib. 
ii.  cap.  ii. 

3  "  Deinde  dum  nimio  zelo  recti- 
tudinis  de  incontinentia  clericorum 
multa  sseve  disponeret,  sine  condi- 
mento  discrecionis,  magnam  sibi  com- 
paravit  invidiam,  et  quam  nee  dici  fas 
est,  acquisivit  infamiam." — He  went 
to  Italy,  seeking  aid  from  Honorius 
II.;  but  was  captured  by  Conrad  the 
Swabian,  the  rival  of  the  Emperor 
Lothair,  and  died  of  affliction  in  his 
prison  at  Parma,  October  1st,  1130. 
(Gresta  Trevirorum  Continuat.  c.  27, 
28.) 


HUNGARY.  261 

might  well  smooth  the  path  and  interpose  as  few  obstacles  as 
possible  to  the  attainment  of  so  desirable  a  consummation. 
It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  restrictions  on  marriage,  as 
applied  to  the  priesthood,  Avere  lightly  passed  over,  and,  not 
being  insisted  on,  were  disregarded  by  all  parties.  Even  the 
decretals  of  Nicholas  II.  and  the  fulminations  of  Gregory  VII. 
appear  to  have  never  penetrated  into  the  kingdom  of  St.  Ste- 
phen, for  sacerdotal  celibacy  seems  to  have  been  unknown 
among  the  Hungarians  until  the  close  of  the  century.  The 
first  allusion  to  it  occurs  in  the  synod  of  Zabolcs,  held  in 
1092,  under  the  auspices  of  St.  Ladislas  II.,  and  is  of  a  nature 
to  show  not  only  that  it  was  an  innovation  on  established 
usages,  but  also  that  the  subject  required  tender  handling  to 
reconcile  it  to  the  weakness  of  undisciplined  human  nature. 
After  the  bitter  denunciations  and  cruelly  harsh  measures 
which  the  popes  had  been  promulgating  for  nearly  half  a 
century,  there  is  an  impressive  contrast  in  the  mildness  with 
which  the  Hungarian  church  offered  indulgence  to  those 
legitimately  united  to  a  first  wife,  until  the  Holy  See  could  be 
consulted  for  a  definitive  decision  j1  and  though  marriages  with 
second  wives,  widows,  or  divorced  women  were  pronounced 
null  and  void,  the  disposition  to  evade  a  direct  meeting  of  the 
question  is  manifested  in  a  regulation  which  provided  that  if 
a  priest  united  himself  to  his  female  slave  "uxoris  in  locum," 
the  woman  should  be  sold ;  but  if  he  refused  to  part  with  her, 
he  was  simply  to  pay  her  price  to  the  bishop.2  Whether  or 
not  the  pope's  decision  was  actually  sought,  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing;  if  it  was,  his  inevitable  verdict  received 
little  respect,  for  the  Synod  of  Gran,  held  about  the  year  1099 
by  the  Primate  Seraphin  of  Gran,  only  ventured  to  recom- 
mend moderation  to  married  priests,  while  its  endeavor  to 
enforce  the  rule  prohibiting  marriage  after  the  assumption 
of  orders  shows  how  utterly  the  recognized  discipline  of  the 


1  Presbyteris  autem  qui  prima  et  j  Ladisl.   Lib.  i.  c.   3.     (Batthyani,  I. 

legitima  duxere  conjugia,  indulgentia  '  434-5.) 

ad  tempus   datur,  propter  vinculum        „  a        jrzui  -10       a 

*       •*  *       o   •  •;      a       Lt  2  Synod.  Zabolcs  c.  1,  2. — Any  pre- 

pacis  et  unitatem  bpiritus  Sancti,  quo- !  ,  .     *,        *•       *  u  *«•  •*        • 

y  i  •     •     -i       -rv      •    •   a       W  •    late  assenting  to  such  illicit  unions, 

usque  nobis  in  hoc  Domini  Apostohci  i        ,        .   .     .=  .  .  ,.   ,  ' 

?      •,  .y  |       a        a     7       and  not  insisting  on  immediate  sepa- 

vSw11!,™   Ci°no«5  l»  Uq"  «-  n-^  +    «t~  !  ration,  was  punishable  to  a  reasonable 
boles  ami..  1092  c.  3,  or  Decret.  St.  I  ^^    (ngd  c>  4>) 


262  CENTRAL   EUROPE. 

church  was  neglected.  The  consent  of  wives  was  also  required 
before  married  priests  could  be  elevated  to  the  episcopate,  and 
after  consecration  separation  was  strictly  enjoined,  affording 
still  further  evidence  of  the  laxity  allowed  to  the  other  grades. 
The  iteration  of  the  rules  respecting  digami  and  marriage  with 
widows  also  indicates  how  difficult  was  the  effort  to  resuscitate 
those  well-known  regulations,  although  they  were  universally 
admitted  to  be  binding  on  all  ecclesiastics.1 

King  Coloman,  whose  reign  extended  from  1095  to  1114, 
has  the  credit  of  being  the  first  who  definitely  enjoined  im- 
maculate purity  on  the  Hungarian  priesthood.  His  laws,  as 
collected  by  Alberic,  have  no  dates,  and  therefore  we  are 
unable  to  affix  precise  epochs  to  them ;  but  his  legislation  on 
the  subject  appears  to  have  been  progressive,  for  we  find 
edicts  containing  injunctions  respecting  digami  and  irregular 
unions  in  terms  which  indicate  that  single  marriages  were  not 
interfered  with ;  and  these  may  reasonably  be  deemed  earlier 
than  other  laws  which  formally  prohibit  the  elevation  to 
the  diaconate  of  an  unmarried  man  without  exacting  from 
him  a  vow  of  continence,  or  of  a  married  man  without  the 
consent  of  his  wife.  The  import  of  this  latter  condition  is 
explained  by  another  law,  which  provided  that  no  married 
man  should  officiate  at  the  altar  unless  his  wife  professed 
continence,  and  was  furnished  by  her  husband  with  the  means 
of  dwelling  apart  from  him.2  As  these  stringent  regulations 
form  part  of  the  canons  of  a  council  held  by  Archbishop 
Seraphin  about  the  year  1109, 3  they  were  probably  borrowed 
from  that  council  by  Coloman,  and  incorporated  into  his 
laws  at  a  period  somewhat  later. 


1  Ut  si  qui  ad  episcopatum  promo- 1  teri,  qui  ad  ordines  suos  redire  nolue- 
vendi  sunt,  si  matrimonio  legitirao  |  rint,  ex  consensu  uxorum  suarum 
juncti  sunt,  nisi  ex  consensu  uxorum  j  recipiantur  :  similiter  si  presbyter 
non  assumantur.  .  .  Presbyteris  ux-  [  concubinam  habuerit,  deponatur.  — 
ores  quas  in  legitimis  ordinibus  acce-  \  Synod.  Strigonens.  n.  (Battbyani,  II. 
permit,  moderatius  habendas  previsa  j  121-8).  Peterffy's  emendation  of  "  vo- 
fragilitate  indulsimus.  .  .  Qui  diaco-  j  luerint"  for  "noluerint,"  in  tbe  clause 
natum  vel  presbyteratum  sine  matri-  j  respecting  digami,  can  hardly  be  ques- 
monio  adepti  sunt,  uxorem  ducere  non  |  tioned. 

liceat.      Uxores    episcoporum   episco- 1      2  D  Coloman      ran     41     4? 

palia  predia  non  inhabitent.  .  .  Si  quis    n      Decret-  -J^010^*    caP'    4i'   4"J* 
de   clero    secundam    vel    repudiatam  I  ComP-  caP'  27  and  3'« 
duxerit,  deponatur.     Bigami  presby- 1      3  Synod.  Vencellina,  circa  1109. 


HUNGARY 


263 


I  have  not  met  with  any  indication  of  the  results  of  the 
legislation  which  thus  combined  the  influence  of  the  tem- 
poral and  ecclesiastical  authorities.  That  it  effected  little, 
however,  is  apparent  from  the  evidence  afforded  by  Dalma- 
tia,  at  that  time  a  province  of  Hungary.  Shortly  before  it 
lost  its  independence,  its  duke,  Dimitri,  resolved  to  assume 
the  crown  of  royalty,  and  purchased  the  assent  of  Gregory 
VII.  at  the  price  of  acknowledging  him  as  feudal  superior. 
Gregory  took  advantage  of  Dimitri's  aspirations  to  further 
the  plans  of  reform,  of  which  he  never  lost  sight ;  for,  in  the 
coronation  oath  taken  in  1076  before  Gebizo,  the  papal 
legate,  the  new  king  swore  that  he  would  take  such  measures 
as  would  insure  the  chastity  of  all  ecclesiastics,  from  the 
bishop  to  the  sub-deacon.1  The  new  dynasty  did  not  last 
long,  for  before  the  end  of  the  century  St.  Ladislas  united 
the  province  of  Dalmatia  to  the  kingdom  of  Hungary ;  but 
neither  the  oath  of  Dimitri,  the  laws  of  Coloman,  nor  the 
canons  of  the  national  councils  succeeded  in  eradicating  the 
custom  of  priestly  marriage.  When  we  find,  in  1185,  Urban 
III.  in  approving  the  acts  of  the  synod  of  Spalatro,  graciously 
expressing  his  approbation  of  its  prohibiting  the  marriage  of 
priests,  and  desiring  that  the  injunction  should  be  extended 
so  as  to  include  the  diaconate,2  we  see  that  marriage  must 
have  been  openly  enjoyed  by  all  ranks,  that  the  synod  had 
not  ventured  to  include  any  but  the  highest  order,  and  that 
Urban  himself  did  not  undertake  to  apply  the  rule  to  sub- 
deacons,  although  they  had  been  specially  included  in  Dimi- 
tri's oath.  Yet  still  pope  and  synod  labored  in  vain,  for  four- 
teen years  later,  in  1199,  another  national  council  complained 
that  priests  kept  both  wives  and  benefices.  It  therefore  com- 
manded that  those  who  indulged  in  this  species  of  adultery 
should  either  dismiss  their  partners  in  guilt,  and  undergo 
due  penance,  or  else  should  give  up  their  churches;  while 
no  married  man  should  be  admitted  to  the  diaconate,  unless 
his  wife  would  take  a  vow  of  continence  before  the  bishop.3 


1  Vitae  episcoporum,presbyterorum, 
diaconorum,  subdiaconorumque  ut 
caste  et  regulariter  vivant,  provideam. 
— Battbyani,  I.  431. 


2  Epist.  Urbani  apud  Battbyani,  II. 
274. 

3  In  partibus  Dalraatise   et  Diocle- 
tiae  sacerdotes   et  uxorem  babere  et 


264 


CENTRAL   EUROPE 


Even  yet,  however,  the  subdiaconate  is  not  alluded  to, 
although  the  legates  who  presided  over  the  council  were 
those  of  Innocent  III. 

Of  how  little  avail  were  these  efforts  is  shown  by  the 
national  council  held  at  Yienna  as  late  as  1267,  by  Cardinal 
Guido,  legate  of  Clement  IV.  It  was  still  found  necessary  to 
order  the  deprivation  of  priests  and  deacons  who  persisted  in 
retaining  their  wives ;  while  the  special  clauses  respecting 
those  who  married  after  taking  orders  prove  that  such  unions 
were  frequent  enough  to  require  tender  consideration  in  re- 
moving the  evil.  The  subdiaconate,  also,  was  declared  liable 
to  the  same  regulations,  but  the  resistance  of  the  members  of 
that  order  was  probably  stubborn,  for  the  canons  were  sus- 
pended in  their  favor  until  further  instructions  should  be 
received  from  the  pope.1 

Poland  was  equally  remiss  in  enforcing  the  canons  on  her 
clergy.  The  efforts  of  Innocent  III.  extended  to  that  distant 
region,  and  in  1197  his  legate,  Cardinal  Peter  of  Capua,  held 
the  synod  of  Lanciski,  when  the  priests  were  peremptorily 
ordered  to  dismiss  their  wives  and  concubines,  who,  in  the 
words  of  the  historian,  were  at  that  time  universally  and 
openly  kept.2  The  effort  was  finally  successful,  at  least  in 
the  western  portions  of  the  kingdom,  for  at  the  council  of 
Breslau,  held  in  1279,  there  is  no  mention  of  wives,  and  the 
constitution  of  Guido,  legate  of  Clement  IV.,  is  quoted,  de- 
priving of  benefices  those  who  openly  kept  concubines.3 

The  church  of  Sweden  was  no  purer  than  its  neighbors. 
In  1213,  the  Archbishop  of  Lunden  wrote  to  Innocent  III. 
complaining  that   the   Swedish   priests   persisted   in   living 


ecclesias  tenere  dicuntur.  .  .  .  Illi 
vero  qui  post  susceptum  sacerdotii 
vel  diaconatus  honorem  adulteras 
potius  quam  uxores  accepisse  proban- 
tur,  nisi  eas  dimiserint  .  .  .  ab  officio 
et  beneficio  ecclesiastico  fiant  penitus 
alieni. — Synod.  Dalmatise,  ann.  1199. 
(Batthyani,  II.  289-90.) 

1  Presbyteros  vel  diaconos  uxoratos, 
qui  ante  acceptos  ordines  vel  postea 
uxores  acceperunt  ab  altaris  ministe- 


rio  et  ecclesiastico  beneficio  separamus 
etc. — Concil.  Vienn.  ann.  1267  (Bat- 
thyani, II.  415-17). 

2  Turn  facta  synodo  provinciali,  sa- 
cerdotibus  imperavit  ut  concubinas  et 
uxores,  quibus  turn  passim  libere  ute- 
bantur,  a  se  abdicarent. — Staravolsc. 
Concil.  Epit.  ap.  Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  II. 
p.  1937. 

8  Concil.  "Vratislaviens.  ann.  1279, 
c.  iii.  (Hartzheim,  III.  808). 


SWEDEN — DENMARK.  265 

with  their  wives,  and  that  thej  moreover  claimed  to  have  a 
papal  dispensation  permitting  it.  Innocent,  in  reply,  cau- 
tiously abstained  from  pronouncing  an  opinion  as  to  the 
validity  of  these  pretensions  until  he  should  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  examining  the  document  to  which  they  appealed.1 
The  efforts  at  this  time  were  fruitless,  for,  in  1248,  we  find 
the  Cardinal  of  St.  Sabina  as  legate  of  Innocent  TV.  holding 
a  council  at  Schening,  of  which  the  principal  object  was  to 
reform  these  abuses,  and  so  firmly  were  they  established, 
that  the  Swedes  were  considered  as  schismatics  of  the  Greek 
church,  in  consequence  of  the  marriage  of  their  priests.2 

In  Denmark  and  along  the  northern  coasts  of  Germany, 
there  was  equal  delay  in  enforcing  the  canon  of  celibacy.  It 
is  suggestive  of  some  powerful  intercession  in  favor  of  the 
married  clergy  when  we  see  Paschal  II.,  in  1117,  writing  to 
the  King  of  Denmark  that  the  rule  was  imperative,  and  that 
he  could  admit  of  no  exceptions  to  it.3  His  insistance,  how- 
ever, was  of  little  avail.  In  1266,  Cardinal  Guido,  legate  of 
Clement  IV.,  held  a  council  at  Bremen,  where  he  was  obliged 
to  take  rigorous  measures  to  put  an  end  to  this  Nicolitan 
heresy.  All  married  priests,  deacons,  and  subdeacons  were 
pronounced  incapable  of  holding  any  ecclesiastical  office  what- 
ever. Children  born  of  such  unions  were  declared  infamous, 
disinherited,  and  any  property  received  by  gift  or  otherwise 
from  their  fathers  was  confiscated.  Those  who  permitted 
their  daughters,  sisters,  or  other  female  relatives  to  contract 
such  marriages,  or  gave  them  up  in  concubinage  to  priests, 
were  excluded  from  the  church.  That  a  previous  struggle 
had  taken  place  on  the  subject  is  evident  from  the  penalties 


1  Postulasti  .  .  .  utrum  sacer-  l  Sabinensis  in  hoc  concilio  erat  revo- 
dotes  Suetise  in  publicisdebeastolerare  care  Suecos  et  Gothos  a  schismate 
conjugiis,  qui  super  hoc  se   asserunt    Grraecorum,  in  quo  presbyteri  et  sacer- 


mjusdam  summi  pontificis  privilegio 
communitos.  .  .  .  De  presbyteris 
autem  Suetise  non  possumus  dare  re- 
sponsum,  nisi  videriinus  privilegium 


dotes,  ductis  publicis  uxoribus,  con- 
sensisse  videbantur. — Johan.  Mag- 
nus Gothus  "(Thomassin,  Discip.  de 
PEglise,  P.  iv.  Lib.  i.  c.  45). 


quod    pra.tendunt.  -  Innocent.      III.        ,  j         R  515-6.-Paschal. 

Regest.  xvi.  Epist.  118.  IL  ^.^  ^       * 


2  Prima  intentio  et  cura  Cardinalis 


266  CENTRAL    EUROPE. 

threatened  against  the  prelates  who  were  in  the  habit  of 
deriving  a  revenue  from  the  protection  of  these  irregularities, 
and  from  an  allusion  to  the  armed  resistance,  made  by  the 
married  and  concubinarv  priests  with  their  friends,  to  all 
efforts  to  check  their  scandalous  conduct.1 

In  Friesland,  too,  the  efforts  of  the  sacerdotalists  were  long 
set  at  naught.  In  1219  Emo,  Abbot  of  Wittewerum,  describ- 
ing the  disastrous  inundations  which  afflicted  his  country, 
considers  them  as  a  punishment  sent  to  chastise  the  vices  of 
the  land,  and  among  the  disorders  which  were  peculiarly 
obnoxious  to  the  wrath  of  God  he  enumerates  the  public  mar- 
riage of  the  priests,  the  hereditary  transmission  of  benefices, 
and  the  testamentary  provision  made  by  ecclesiastics  for  their 
children  out  of  the  property  which  should  accrue  to  the 
church ;  while  his  references  to  the  canon  law  inhibiting 
these  practices,  show  that  these  transgressions  were  not  ex- 
cusable through  ignorance.2  The  warning  was  unheeded,  for 
Abbot  Emo  alludes  incidentally,  on  various  subsequent  occa- 
sions, to  the  hereditary  transmission  of  several  deaneries  as 
a  matter  of  course.3  The  deans  in  Friesland  were  ecclesiastics 
of  high  position,  each  having  six  or  more  parishes  under  his 
jurisdiction,  which  he  governed  under  legatine  power  from  the 
Bishop  of  Munster.  When,  in  1271,  the  people  rose  against 
them,  exasperated  by  their  intolerable  exactions,  in  some 
temporary  truce  the  deans  gave  their  children  as  hostages  ; 
and  when,  after  their  expulsion,  Gerard  of  Munster  came  to 
their  assistance  by  excommunicating  the  rebels,  the  latter 
defended  the  movement  'by  the  argument  that  the  deans  had 


1  Concil.  Bremens.  ami.  1266  (Hartz- 
heim,  IV.  580). 

2  Ecclesiae  jure  hereditario  a  filiis 
sacerdotum  possidentur. 
Presbyteri  et  ceteri  altaris  ministri 
ex  oblatis  convivantur,  et  tabernas 
intrant.  .  .  .  Conjugati  sacros 
ordines  capiunt,  et  beneficia  ecclesi- 
astica  et  conjuges  conjuguntur  contra 
decretales  ff.  de  cleric,  conjug.  Nee  res 

quas  acquirunt  post  ordines  ecclesiis  Sigrepo.-Ibid.  aim.  1233 

sed  hbens  suis  relinquunt. — Emonis  |  ^  D    r 

Chron.  ann.  1219. 


3  Eodem  tempore  defunctus  est 
praefatus  decanus  (Herbrandus)  pos- 
sessor ecclesiae  in  Husquei't,  tertius 
heres  illius  nominis,  relicto  parvulo 
ejusdem  nominis.  (Emonis  Chron. 
ann.  1231.) — and  Emo  alludes  to  him 
as  "  honesto  viro  Herbrando. " 

Obiit  Geyco  decanus  in  Firmetium 
vir  per  omnia  saecularibus  artibus 
idoneus,  et  bene  religiosus  et  obsequi- 
osus.      Successit  ei  Sicco,  quartus  a 


FRIESLAND. 


267 


violated  the  laws  of  the  church  by  handing  down  their 
positions  from  father  to  son,  and  that  each  generation  imitated 
the  incontinence  of  its  predecessor.1  Hildebrand  would  have 
applauded  this  reasoning,  but  his  days  were  past.  The  church 
by  this  time  had  gained  the  position  to  which  it  had  aspired, 
and  no  longer  invoked  secular  assistance  to  enforce  its  laws. 
Even  Abbot  Menco,  while  admitting  the  validity  of  the 
popular  argument,  claimed  that  such  questions  were  reserved 
for  the  decision  of  the  church  alone,  and  that  the  people  must 
not  interfere. 

After  thus  marking  the  slow  progress  of  the  Hildebrandine 
movement  in  these  frontier  lands  of  Christendom,  let  us  see 
what  efforts  were  required  to  establish  the  reform  in  regions 
less  remote. 


1  Et  eos  (deeanos)  de  terra  depute-  successissent,  absque  dispensatione 
runt,  licet  ipsi  filios  suos  eis  dedissent  Sedis  Apostolicje,  et  maxime  quod 
obsides.  .  .  .  Assumentes  sibi  essent  paternse  incontinentia  imita- 
in  argumentum  excusationis,  quod  tores. — Menconis  Chron.  Werens.  ann. 
plurimi  decani  contra  jura  patribus  |  1271. 


LI  B  K  A  -..   • 


(MJl'OKNtAy 


XVI. 
FRANCE. 


GrKEGOKY  VII.  had  not  been  so  engrossed  in  his  quarrels 
with  the  Empire  as  to  neglect  the  prosecution  of  his  favorite 
schemes  of  reform  elsewhere.  If  he  displayed  somewhat  less 
of  energy  and  zeal  in  dealing  with  the  ecclesiastical  foibles 
of  other  countries,  it  was  perhaps  because  the  political  com- 
plications which  gave  a  special  zest  to  his  efforts  in  Germany 
were  wanting,  and  because  there  was  no  organized  resistance 
supported  by  the  temporal  authorities.  Yet  the  inertia  of 
passive  non-compliance  long  rendered  his  endeavors  and  those 
of  his  successors  equally  nugatory. 

As  early  as  1056  we  find  Victor  II.,  by  means  of  his  vicars 
at  the  council  of  Toulouse,  enjoining  on  the  priesthood  separa- 
tion from  their  wives,  under  penalty  of  excommunication  and 
deprivation  of  function  and  benefice.1  This  was  followed 
up  in  1060  by  Nicholas  II.,  who  sought  through  his  envoys 
to  enforce  the  observance  of  his  decretals  on  celibacy  in 
France,  and  under  the  presidency  of  his  legate  the  council  of 
Tours  in  that  year  adopted  a  canon  of  the  most  decided 
character.  All  who,  since  the  promulgation  of  the  decretal 
of  1060,  had  continued  in  the  performance  of  their  sacred 
functions  while  still  preserving  relations  with  their  wives 
and  concubines  were  deprived  of  their  grades  without  hope 
of  restoration ;  and  the  same  irrevocable  penalty  was  de- 
nounced against  those  who  in  the  future  should  endeavor  to 
combine  the  incompatible  duties  of  husband  and  minister  of 
Christ.2 


1  Placuit  quoque  presbyteros,  dia- 
conos  et  reliquos  clericos  qui  ecclesi- 
asticos  tenuerint  honores  abstinere 
omnimodis  ab  uxoribus,  vel  reliquis 


mulienbus  etc. — Concil.  Tolosan.  aim. 
1056,  can.  vii. 

2  Prreterea,    si    quis    episcoporura, 
presbyterorum,  diaconorum,  aut  subdi- 


CLERICAL    CONTUMACY. 


269 


In  what  spirit  these  threats  and  injunctions  were  likely  to 
be  received  may  be  gathered  from  an  incident  which  occurred, 
probably  about  this  time.  A  French  bishop,  as  in  duty  bound, 
excommunicated  one  of  his  deacons  for  marrying.  The  clergy 
of  the  diocese,  keen  to  appreciate  the  prospect  of  future 
trouble,  rallied  around  their  persecuted  brother,  and  rose  in 
open  rebellion  against  the  prelate.  The  latter,  apparently, 
was  unable  to  maintain  his  position,  and  the  matter  was  re- 
ferred for  adjudication  to  the  celebrated  Berenger  of  Tours. 
Although,  in  view  of  the  papal  jurisprudence  of  the  period, 
the  bishop  would  seem  to  have  acted  with  leniency,  yet 
Berenger  blamed  both  parties  for  their  precipitancy  and 
quarrelsome  humor,  and  decided  that  the  excommunication 
of  a  deacon  for  marrying  was  contrary  to  the  canons,  unless 
rendered  unavoidable  by  the  contumacy  of  the  offender.1 

Even  more  significant  was  the  scene  which  occurred  in 
1074  in  the  council  of  Paris,  where  the  holy  St.  Gauthier, 
Abbot  of  Ponthoise,  undertook  to  sustain  the  decretal  by 
which  Gregory  VII.  prohibited  attendance  on  the  masses  of 
married  and  concubinary  priests.  The  assembly  manifested 
its  disapprobation  of  the  measure  in  a  manner  so  energetic 
that  its  unlucky  advocate,  after  being  furiously  berated  and 
soundly  pummelled,  was  glad  to  escape  with  his  life  from  the 
hands  of  his  indignant  brethren.2 

When  such  was  the  spirit  of  the  ecclesiastical  body,  there 
was  little  to  be  expected  from  any  internal  attempt  at  reform. 
At  the  stormy  synod  of  Poitiers,  in  1078,  the  papal  legate, 
Hugh,  Bishop  of  Die,  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  adoption  of 
a  canon  which  threatened  with   excommunication  all  who 


aconorum,  post  cognitum  interdictum 
domini  nostri  papte  Nicolai,  mulieris 
cujuslibet  carnali  detentus  copula,  a 
ministerio  et  beneficio  altaris  non 
cessavit ;  sive  deinceps  cognoscens 
prselibatum  apostolicse  sedis  inter- 
dictum, aut  mulierem  aut  minis- 
terium  ecclesire  cum  beneficio  non 
statim  deseruerit,  nullam  restitutionis 
in  pristino  gradu  veniam  sibi  reser- 
vasse  coenoscat. — Concil.  Turon.  ann. 
1060,  c.  6. 


1  Ceterum,  quod  excommunicavit 
diaconum  suum  propter  ductam  uxo- 
rem,  contra  canones  fecisse  videtur 
mihi,  nisi  forte  cogente  pertinacia 
ipsius.— Epist.  Berengar.  Turon.  (Mar- 
tene  et  Durand.  I.  195-6).  It  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  persecution 
of  Berenger  arose  solely  from  his 
theological  subtleties,  and  that  objec- 
tions to  celibacy  formed  no  portion  of 
his  errors. 

2  Art  de  Verifier  les  Dates,  s.  v. 


270 


FRANCE 


should  knowingly  listen  to  the  mass  of  a  concubinary  or 
simoniacal  priest,1  but  this  seems  to  have  met  with  little 
response.  Coercion  from  without  was  evidently  requisite, 
and  in  this  cause,  as  we  have  seen,  Gregory  did  not  shrink 
from  subjecting  the  church  to  the  temporal  power.  In  Nor- 
mandy, for  instance,  a  synod  held  at  Lisieux  in  1055  had 
commanded  the  degradation  of  priests  who  resided  with  wives 
or  concubines.  This  was,  of  course,  ineffective,  and  in  1072 
John,  Archbishop  of  Eouen,  held  a  council  in  his  cathedral  city 
where  he  renewed  that  canon  in  terms  which  show  how  com- 
pletely all  orders  and  dignitaries  were  liable  to  its  penalties.2 
The  Norman  clergy  were  not  disposed  to  submit  quietly  to 
this  abridgment  of  their  accustomed  privileges,  and  they  ex- 
pressed their  dissent  by  raising  a  terrible  clamor  and  driving 
their  archbishop  from  the  council  with  a  shower  of  stones, 
from  which  he  barely  escaped  alive.3  At  length,  in  view  of 
the  utter  failure  of  all  ecclesiastical  legislation,  the  laity  were 
called  in.  William  the  Conqueror,  therefore,  in  1080,  assisted 
the  Archbishop  of  Eouen  in  holding  a  synod  at  Lillebonne, 
where  the  stern  presence  of  the  suzerain  prevented  any  un- 
seemly resistance  to  the  adoption  of  most  unpalatable  regu- 
lations. All  who  were  in  holy  orders  were  forbidden, 
under  any  pretext,  to  keep  women  in  their  houses,  and  if, 
when  accused  of  disobedience,  they  were  unable  to  prove 
themselves  innocent,  their  benefices  were  irretrievably  for- 
feited. If  the  accusation  was  made  by  the  ecclesiastical 
officials,  the  offender  was  to  be  tried  by  the  episcopal  court, 
but  if  his  parishioners  or  feudal  superior  were  the  complain- 
ants, he  was  to  be  brought  before  a  mixed  tribunal,  composed 
of  the  squires  of  his  parish  and  the  officials  of  the  bishop. 
This  startling  invasion  of  the  dearest  privileges  of  the  church 
was  declared  by  William  to  proceed  from  no  desire  to  inter  - 


1  Concil.  Pictaviens.  aim.  1078, 
can.  9. 

2  De  sacerdotibus  et  levitis  et  sub- 
diaconibus  qui  feininas  sibi  usur- 
paverunt,  concilium  Lexoviense  ob- 
servetur,  ne  ecclesias  per  se  atque  per 
suffraganeos  regant,  nee  aliquid  de 
beneficiis  habeant.  Arcbidiaconi  qui 
eos  regere  debent,  non  permittantur 


aliquam  habere  nee  concubinam  nee 
subintroductam  mulierem  nee  pelli- 
cem  .  .  .  Oportet  etiani  ut  tales 
decani  eligantur  qui  sciant  subditos 
redarguere  et  emendare. — Concil.  Ro- 
tomag.  arm.  1072,  can.  16  "  de  clericis 
uxoratis." 

3  Orderic.  Vital.  P.  n.  Lib.  iv.  c.  2. 


NORMANDY  —  SECULAR   INTERFERENCE.       271 

fere  with  the  jurisdiction  of  his  bishops,  but  to  be  a  temporary 
expedient,  rendered  necessary  by  their  negligence.  Nor  was 
this  remarkable  measure  the  only  thing  that  renders  the  synod 
of  Lillebonne  worthy  of  note,  for  it  affords  us  the  earliest 
authoritative  indication  of  a  practice  which  subsequently 
became  a  standing  disgrace  to  the  church.  The  fifth  canon 
declares  that  no  priest  shall  be  forced  to  give  anything  to  the 
bishop  or  to  the  officers  of  the  diocese  beyond  their  lawful 
dues,  and  especially  that  no  money  shall  be  exacted  on 
account  of  women  kept  by  clerks.1  A  tribute  known  as 
"  cullagium"  became  at  times  a  recognized  source  of  revenue, 
in  consideration  of  which  the  weaknesses  of  human  nature 
were  excused,  and  ecclesiastics  were  allowed  to  enjoy  in 
security  the  society  of  their  concubines.  We  shall  see  here- 
after that  this  infamous  custom  continued  to  flourish  until  the 
sixteenth  century,  despite  the  most  strenuous  and  repeated 
endeavors  to  remove  so  grievous  a  scandal. 

It  is  probable  that  the  expedient  of  mixed  courts  for  the 
trial  of  married  and  concubinary  priests  was  not  adopted 
without  the  concurrence  of  Gregory,  who  was  willing  to 
make  almost  any  sacrifice  necessary  to  accomplish  his  pur- 
pose. That  they  were  organized  and  performed  the  functions 
delegated  to  them  is  shown  by  a  reference  in  a  charter  of 
1088  to  one  held  at  Caumont,  which  required  a  priest  to 
abandon  either  his  wife  or  his  church.2  So  far,  indeed,  was 
Gregory  from  protesting  against  this  violation  of  ecclesias- 
tical immunities,  that  he  was  willing  even  to  connive  at  the 
abuses  which  immediately  crept  into  the  system,  and  to  pur- 
chase the  assistance  of  the  laity  by  allowing  them  to  lay 
sacrilegious  hands  on  the  temporalities  of  the  church.  Many 
of  the  nobles  who  thus  assisted  in  expelling  the  offending 
clergy  seized  the  tithes  and  retained  them.  The  papal  legate, 
Hugh,  Bishop  of  Die— better  known  by  his  subsequent  pri- 
matial  dignity  of  Lyons — proceeded  against  these  invaders  of 


1  CoDcil.  Juliobonens.  ann.  1080, 
can.  3,  5.  (Orderic.  Vital.  P.  n.  Lib. 
v.  c.  6.— Harduin.  Concil.  T.  VI.  P.  I. 
p.  1599.) — Propter  eorum  ferninas 
nulla  pecuniae  emendatio  exigatur. 

1  Teuentes   placitum  de  presbitero 


ecclesiae  Sanctae  Marias,  quae  sita  est 
inferius  non  longe  a  Ledonis  Curte  ; 
et  volebant  aut  uxorem  ejus  illi  ex- 
cutere,  aut  ecclesiam  quae  illorum 
erat.  —  Pauli  Carnot.  Vet.  Agano. 
Lib.  vin.  c.  11. 


272  FRANCE. 

church  property  in  the  usual  manner,  and  excommunicated 
them  as  a  matter  of  course.  Gregory,  however,  who  under  ordi- 
nary circumstances  would  have  promptly  consigned  the  spoil- 
ers to  the  bottomless  pit,  now  virtually  took  their  side.  He 
discreetly  declined  to  confirm  the  excommunication,  reproved 
his  legate  for  superserviceable  zeal,  and  ordered  him  in  future 
to  be  more  guarded  and  temperate  in  his  proceedings.1 

Church  and  state — the  zeal  of  the  ecclesiastic  and  the  ava- 
rice of  the  noble — vainly  united  to  break  down  the  stubborn- 
ness of  the  Norman  priesthood,  for  marriage  continued  to  be 
enjoyed  as  openly  as  ever.  The  only  effect  of  the  attempted 
reform,  indeed,  appeared  to  be  that  when  a  priest  entered  into 
matrimony  he  took  a  solemn  vow  never  to  give  up  his  wife, 
a  measure  prompted  doubtless  by  the  fears  of  the  bride  and 
her  kindred.  The  nuptials  were  public;  male  issue  suc- 
ceeded to  benefices  by  a  recognized  primogeniture,  and  female 
children  received  their  fathers'  churches  as  dower,  when  other 
resources  were  wanting.  About  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth 
century,  three  enthusiastic  ascetic  reformers,  the  celebrated 
Eobert  d'Arbrissel,  founder  of  Fontevrault,  Bernard  Abbot 
of  Tiron,  and  Vitalis  of  Mortain  traversed  Normandy  and 
preached  with  great  earnestness  against  these  abuses,  the 
result  of  which  was  that  they  nearly  came  to  an  untimely 
end  at  the  hands  of  the  indignant  pastors  and  their  more  in- 
dignant spouses.2 

If  William  the  Conqueror  found  his  advantage  in  thus 
assisting  the  hopeless  reform  within  his  duchy  of  Normandy, 
he  had  no  hesitation  in  obstructing  it  when  his  policy  de- 
manded such  a  course  in  his  subject  province  of  Britanny. 
During  the  three  and  a  half  centuries  through  which  the  Bre- 
ton church  maintained  its  independence  of  the  archiepiscopal 
see  of  Tours,  its  metropolis  was  Dol.    Judhael,  who  occupied 


1  Gregor.  VII.  Regist.  Lib.  ix.  Epist.  |  dead  to  the  world,  presumed  to  preach 
5.  !  to  the  living.     Bernard  replied  that 

9  n      c  -j-  n        •  TT-i    -r.  j-  m-    i  Samson  had  slain  his   foes  with  the 

2  Gaufridi  Grossi  Vit.  Bernardi  Ti-  I  .   ,  f      ,  „  -,  „M    „    *  +1 _ 

n    a    ci    ci       /-I  i  iaw-bone  of  a  dead  ass,  and  then  pro- 

ronens.  c    6,  §§  51-54.     On  one  oc-    J     d  d     .  h  gQ  movi      'a  discomJon 
casion  when  Bernard  was   preaching  ,  ^m  archdeacon  was  con- 

at   Coutances,  a  married   archdeacon    verted   '      d   interfered   to    save  him 
assailed  him,  with  a  crowd  of  priests  i  f         ,?  , 

and  clerks,  asking  how  he,  a  monk,  j 


BRITANNY FLANDERS. 


273 


its  lofty  seat,  not  only  obtained  it  by  simony,  but  sullied 
it  by  a  public  marriage ;  and  when  the  offspring  of  this  illicit 
union  reached  maturity,  he  portioned  them  from  the  property 
of  the  church.  This  prolonged  violation  of  the  canons  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  Gregory  soon  after  his  accession,  and 
in  1076  he  informed  "William  that  he  had  deposed  the  offender. 
William,  however,  saw  fit  to  defend  the  scandal,  and  refused 
to  receive  Evenus,  Abbot  of  St.  Melanius,  whom  Gregory 
had  appointed  as  a  successor.1  Judhael,  indeed,  was  no  worse 
than  his  suffragans.  For  three  generations  the  diocese  of 
Quimper  was  held  by  father,  son,  and  grandson;  while  the 
Bishops  of  Eennes,  Yannes,  and  Nantes  were  openly  mar- 
ried, and  their  wives  enjoyed  the  recognized  rank  of  coun- 
tesses, as  an  established  right.2  How  much  improvement 
resulted  from  the  efforts  of  Gregory  and  his  legate  Hugh 
may  be  estimated  from  the  description,  in  general  terms,  of 
the  iniquities  ascribed  to  the  Breton  clergy,  both  secular  and 
regular,  in  the  early  part  of  the  next  century,  by  Paschal  II. 
when  granting  the  pallium  to  Baldric,  Archbishop  of  Dol.3 


In  Flanders,  Count  Eobert  the  Frisian  and  Adela,  his 
mother,  were  well  disposed  to  second  the  reformatory  mea- 
sures of  Gregory,  but,  doubting  their  right  to  eject  the  offend- 
ers, they  applied,  in  1076,  to  him  for  instructions.  His 
answers  were  unequivocal,  urging  them  to  the  most  prompt 
and  summary  proceedings.4  The  spirit  in  which  the  clergy 
met  the  attack  was  manifested  by  the  incident  already  de- 
scribed, when,  in  1077,  an  unfortunate  zealot  was  burned  at  the 
stake  in  Cambrai  for  maintaining  the  propriety  of  the  papal 


1  Gregor.  VII.  Epist.  Extrav.  29.— 
Epist.    apud  Martene  et  Durand,  III. 

871-6. 

2  Roujoux,  Hist,  de  Bretagne,  II. 
98-99.  The  independence  affected 
by  the  Breton  church  is  well  shown 
in  a  singularly  impertinent  letter  ad- 
dressed to  Leo  IX.  by  the  clergy  of 
Nantes,  refusing  to  receive  a  bishop 
appointed  by  him,  after  the  degrada- 
tion for  simony  of  Prodicus  by  the 
council  of  Rheims  in  1050.  (Mart,  et 
Dur.  I.  172-3.) 

18 


3  Tantum  vestris  in  partibus  jam 
abundat  iniquitas,  quod  Christiana 
religio  penitus  ibi  deperire  videatur, 
et  quod  sine  dolore  dicere  non  pos- 
sumus,  non  solum  laici,  veruni  etiam 
clerici  et  monachi  in  prohibitis  seu 
illicitis  prorumpentes,  Deo  et  homini- 
bus  odibilia  perpetrare  non  metuunt. 
(Martene  et  Durand,  III.  882.) 

4  Gregor.  VII.  Regist.  Lib.  iv.  Epist. 
10,  11. 


274 


FRANCE. 


decretals.  The  same  disposition,  though  fortunately  leading 
to  less  deplorable  results,  was  exhibited  in  Artois.  At  the 
instance  of  Adela,  Eobert,  in  1072,  had  founded  the  Priory  of 
Watten,  near  St.  Omer.  Despite  this  powerful  interest  and 
patronage,  the  house  had  a  severe  struggle  for  existence,  as 
its  prior,  Otfrid,  lent  his  influence  to  support  the  reform  and 
to  enforce  the  decrees  of  Gregory.  Eeproaches  and  curses 
were  showered  upon  the  infant  community,  and  it  was  openly 
threatened  with  fire  and  sword,  until  the  unfortunate  brethren 
felt  equally  insecure  within  their  walls  and  abroad.  At 
length  the  Countess  Adela  took  Otfrid  with  her  on  a  pilgrim- 
age to  Eome,  and  there  the  holy  man  procured  from  Gregory 
a  confirmation  of  the  privileges  of  his  house.  On  his  return, 
he  found  that  this  instrument  only  made  the  persecution 
more  vehement.  Accusations  of  all  kinds  were  made 
against  the  priory,  and  its  enemies  succeeded  in  causing  the 
brethren  to  be  brought  for  trial  before  the  local  synod,  where 
the  production  of  the  papal  charter  was  ordered.  It  was  at 
once  pronounced  a  forgery,  was  taken  away  by  force,  and  was 
retained  by  the  Bishop,  Drogo  of  Terouane,  in  spite  of  all 
remonstrance.1 

The  opposition  of  the  clergy  was  not  lessened  by  the 
manner  in  which  the  secular  authorities  exercised  the  power 
bestowed  upon  them.  Count  Eobert  saw  the  advantages  de- 
rivable from  the  position  of  affairs  and  seems  to  have  been 
resolved  to  turn  it  thoroughly  to  account.  Among  other 
modes  adopted  was  that  of  the  "jus  spolii,"  by  which  he 
seized  the  effects  of  dying  ecclesiastics,  turning  their  families 
out  of  doors  and  disinheriting  the  heirs.  These  arbitrary 
proceedings  he  defended  on  the  ground  of  the  incontinence  of 
the  sufferers,  boldly  declaring  that  wicked  priests  were  no 
priests — as  if,  groaned  the  indignant  clerks,  sinful  men  were 
not  men.2     In  1091,  the  Flemish  priests  complained  of  these 


1  Ebrardi  Chron.  "Watinens.  cap. 
22-3.  Ebrard  was  a  contemporary, 
a  disciple  of  Otfrid,  and  therefore  his 
statement  of  the  motives  of  the  per- 
secution is  entitled  to  credence. 

2  "Addens  malos   sacerdotes  sacer- 


dotes  non  esse,  acsi  peccator  homo 
non  esset  homo."  From  the  tenor  of 
Robert's  defence  it  is  evident  that  it 
was  the  children  of  the  clerks  whom  he 
disinherited.  The  documents  are  in 
Warnkonie,  Hist,  de  Flandre,  I.  330-3 
(Bruxelles,  1835). 


FLANDERS SECULAR  TYRANNY.      275 

acts  to  Urban  II.,  and  he  vainly  endeavored  to  interfere  in 
their  behalf.1  Finding  this  resource  fail,  they  appealed  to 
their  metropolitan,  Eenaud,  Archbishop  of  Eheims,  who  by 
active  measures  succeeded  in  putting  an  end  to  the  abuse  in 
1092. 

Amid  all  this  the  church  proved  powerless  to  enforce  its 
laws,  and  again  it  called  upon  the  feudal  authority  for  assist- 
ance— this  time  in  a  manner  by  which  it  admitted  its  im- 
potence on  a  question  so  vital.  In  1099,  Manasses  of  Eheims 
held  a  provincial  synod  at  St.  Omer,  which  instructed  the 
Count  of  Flanders,  Eobert  the  Hierosolymitan,  to  seize  the 
wives  of  all  priests  who  after  excommunication  declined  to 
abandon  their  guilty  partners ;  and  in  this  he  was  not  to  ask 
or  wait  for  the  assent  of  the  bishop  of  the  diocese.  The 
sturdy  Crusader  would  doubtless  have  carried  out  this  order 
to  the  letter,  with  all  its  attendant  cruelty  and  misery,  but 
the  clergy  of  the  province  united  in  remonstrances  so  vehe- 
ment that  Manasses  was  forced  to  abandon  his  position.  He 
accordingly  requested  Eobert  on  no  account  to  disturb  the 
married  priests  and  their  wives,  or  to  permit  his  nobles  to  do 
so,  except  when  assistance  was  demanded  by  the  bishops. 
He  acknowledged  the  injustice  he  had  committed  in  over- 
slaughing the  constituted  authorities  of  the  church,  and  depre- 
cated the  rapine  and  spoliation  which  so  ill-advised  a  proceed- 
ing might  cause.  At  the  same  time  he  admonished  his  suf- 
fragans to  proceed  vigorously  against  all  who  married  in 
orders,  and  to  call  on  the  seigneurial  power  to  coerce  those 
who  should  prove  contumacious.2 

Harsh  and  violent  as  were  the  measures  thus  threatened, 
there  appears  to  have  been  extreme  hesitation  in  carrying 
them  out.  A  certain  clerk  known  as  Eobert  of  Artois  com- 
mitted the  unpardonable  indiscretion  of  marrying  a  widow, 
and  openly  resisted  all  the  efforts  of  his  bishop  to  reduce  him 
to  obedience.  Not  only  his  original  crime,  but  his  subse- 
quent contumacious  rebellion  would  assuredly  justify  the 
severest  chastisement,  yet  both  the  secular  and  ecclesiastical 
powers  of  the  province  seem  to  have  been  at  fault,  for  it  was 

1  Urbani  PP.  II.  Epist.  lxx.  |      2  Lambert.  Atrebat.  Epist.  60. 


276  FRANCE. 

found  necessary  to  ask  the  interference  of  no  less  a  personage 
than  Eichard,  Bishop  of  Albano,  then  enjoying  the  dignity 
of  papal  legate  in  France.  In  1104  the  legate  accordingly 
addressed  the  Count  of  Flanders  with  the  very  moderate 
request  that  the  obstinate  rebel  and  his  abettors  should  be 
held  as  excommunicate  until  they  should  reconcile  themselves 
to  their  bishop.1  How  obstinately,  indeed,  the  clergy  held  to 
their  wives,  and  how  slow  was  the  result  of  all  tljese  efforts, 
may  be  understood  when  we  find  Paschal  II.,  after  the  year 
1100,  writing  to  the  clergy  of  Terouane,  expressing  his  sur- 
prise that,  in  spite  of  so  many  decretals  of  popes  and  canons 
of  councils,  they  still  adhered  to  their  consorts,  some  of  them 
openly  and  some  secretly.  To  remedy  this,  he  has  nothing 
but  a  repetition  of  the  old  threat  of  deprivation.2 

The  confusion  which  this  attempted  reformation  caused  in 
France  was  apparently  not  so  aggravated  as  we  have  seen  it 
in  Germany,  and  yet  it  was  sufficiently  serious.  Guibert  de 
ISTogent  relates  that  in  his  youth  commenced  the  persecution  of 
the  married  priests  by  Borne,  when  a  cousin  of  his,  a  layman 
of  flagrant  and  excessive  licentiousness,  made  himself  con- 
spicuous by  his  attacks  on  the  failings  of  the  clergy.  The 
family  were  anxious  to  provide  for  young  Guibert,  who  was 
destined  to  the  church,  and  the  cousin  used  his  influence  with 
the  patron  of  a  benefice  to  oust  the  married  incumbent  and 
bestow  the  preferment  on  Guibert.  The  priest  thus  forcibly 
ejected  abandoned  neither  his  wife  nor  his  functions,  but 
relieved  his  mind  by  excommunicating  every  day,  in  the 
Mass,  Guibert's  mother  and  all  her  family,  until  the  good 
woman's  fears  were  so  excited  that  she  abandoned  the  pre- 


1  Robertum  vero  Atrebatensem  die-  j  wives  until  Lambert  excommunicated 
turn  clericum  viduse  copulatum,  epis-  j  them,  when  they  journeyed  to  Rome 
copo  suo  obstinate  rebellem,  cum  |  in  hopes  of  being  reconciled  to  the 
omnibus     suse     partis     complicibus,  j  church.     Paschal   II.  absolved  them 


habeas  excommunicatum,  donee  ta- 
men  suo  reconcilietur  episcopo. — Ibid. 
Epist.  84.  Robert  finally  appealed  to 
Rome  ;  but  was  obliged  to  succumb, 
as  we  learn  from  an  epistle  of  Paschal 
II.  (Paschalis  PP.  II.  Epist.  134). 
Similar  was  the  case  of  two  Artesian 
deacons  who  refused  to  abandon  their 


on  their  taking  a  solemn  oath  upon 
the  Gospels  to  live  single  in  future,  and 
he  sent  them  back  to  Lambert,  with 
instructions  to  watch  them  carefully. 
— Lambert.  Epist.  apud  Baluz.  et 
Mansi  II.  150.— (Paschalis  PP.  II. 
Epist.  134.) 

2  Paschalis  PP.  II.  Epist.  415. 


COUNCIL   OF    CLERMONT. 


277 


bend  which  she  had  obtained  with  so  much  labor.1  We  can 
readily  conceive  this  incident  to  be  a  type  of  what  was  occur- 
ring in  every  corner  of  the.  kingdom,  when,  in  an  age  of  brnte 
force,  the  reverence  which  was  the  only  defence  of  the  priest- 
hood was  partially  destroyed,  and  the  people  hardly  knew 
whether  they  were  to  adore  their  pastors  as  representatives 
of  God  or  to  dread  them  as  the  powerful  ministers  of  evil. 


When  the  religious  ardor  of  Europe  rose  to  the  wild  ex- 
citement that  culminated  in  the  Crusades,  and  Pope  Urban  II. 
astutely  availed  himself  of  the  movement  to  place  the  church 
in  possession  of  a  stronger  influence  over  the  minds  of  men 
than  it  had  ever  before  enjoyed,  it  was  to  no  purpose  that 
the  great  council  of  Clermont,  in  1095,  took  the  opportunity 
to  proclaim  in  the  most  solemn  manner  the  necessity  of  per- 
fect purity  in  ministers  of  the  altar,  to  denounce  irrevocable 
expulsion  for  contravention  of  the  rule,  and  to  forbid  the 
children  of  ecclesiastics  from  entering  the  church  except  as 
monks  or  canons.2  It  was  the  weightiest  exposition  of  church 
discipline,  and  was  promulgated  under  circumstances  to  give 
it  the  widest  publicity  and  the  highest  authority.  Yet,  within 
a  few  years  we  find  Grualo,  Bishop  of  Paris,  applying  to  Ivo 
of  Chartres  for  advice  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  with  a 
canon  of  his  church  who  had  recently  married,  and  Ivo  in 
reply  recommending  as  a  safe  course  that  the  marriage  be 
held  valid,  but  that  the  offender  be  relieved  of  his  stipend  and 
functions.3  His  answer,  moreover,  is  written  in  a  singularly 
undecided  tone,  and  an  elaborate  argument  is  presented  as 
though  the  matter  were  still  open  to  discussion,  although 
Ivo's  laborious  compilations  of  the  canon  law  show  that  he 


1  Guibert.  Noviogent.  de  Vita  Sua, 
Lib.  I.  cap.  vii. 

2  Concil.  Claromont.  can.  9.  Ut 
nullus  sacerdos  aut  diaconus  aut  sub- 
diaconus,  sed  et  nullus  qui  canonicam 
babet,  fornicationis  sibi  copulam  ad- 
jungat.  Quod  si  quis  fecerit,  a  ca- 
nonica  oranino  arceatur. 

Can.  10.  Ut  in  domibus  clericorum 
nullas  liceat  babitare  mulieres,  nisi 
quas  sancti  canones  permittunt. 


Can.  25.  Ne  filii  presbyterorum, 
diaconorum  vel  subdiaconorum  ca- 
nonicorum  ad  ordines,  vel  alios  honores 
ecclesiasticos  promoveantur,  nisi  mo- 
nachus  vel  canonicus  fuerit. 

In  Lent  of  tbe  following  year  (1096) 
Urban  caused  these  canons  to  be  re- 
ceived by  a  provincial  council  held 
underhis  auspices  at  Tours. — Bernald. 
Constant,  ami.  1096. 

»  Ivon.  Carnot.  Epist.  218. 


278 


FRANCE 


was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  ancient  discipline  which  the 
depravity  of  his  generation  had  rendered  obsolete.1  Hardly 
less  significant  is  another  epistle  in  which  Ivo  calls  the  at- 
tention of  Daimbert,  Archbishop  of  Sens,  to  the  conduct  of 
one  of  his  dignitaries  who  publicly  maintained  two  con- 
cubines and  was  preparing  to  marry  a  third.  He  urges 
Daimbert  to  put  an  end  to  the  scandal,  and  suggests  that  if 
he  is  unable  to  accomplish  it  single-handed,  he  should  sum- 
mon two  or  three  of  his  suffragans  to  his  assistance.2  Either 
of  these  instances  is  a  sufficient  confession  of  the  utter  futility 
of  the  ceaseless  exertions  which  for  half  a  century  the 
church  had  been  making  to  enforce  her  discipline.  Nor, 
perhaps,  can  her  ill-success  be  wondered  at  when  we  consider 
how  unworthy  were  the  hands  to  which  was  frequently 
intrusted  the  administering  of  the  law  and  the  laxity  of 
opinion  which  viewed  the  worst  transgressions  with  indulg- 
ence. The  archdeacons  were  the  officials  to  whom  was 
specially  confided  the  supervision  over  sacerdotal  morals,  and 
yet,  when  a  man  occupying  that  responsible  position,  like 
Aldebert  of  Le  Mans,  publicly  surrounded  himself  with  a 
harem,  and  took  no  shame  from  the  resulting  crowd  of  off- 
spring, so  little  did  his  conduct  shock  the  sensibilities  of  the 
age  that  he  was  elevated  to  the  episcopal  chair,  and  only  the 
stern  voice  of  Ivo  could  be  heard  reproving  the  measureless 
scandal.3 

Equal  laxity  pervaded  the  monastic  establishments.  Hilde- 
bert,  Bishop  of  Le  Mans,  made  numerous  fruitless  attempts 
to  restore  discipline  in  the  celebrated  abbey  of  Euron,  the 
monks  of  which  indulged  in  the  grossest  licentiousness,  and 
successfully  defied  his  power  until  he  was  obliged  to  appeal 
to  the  papal  legate  for  assistance.4  The  description  which 
Ivo  of  Chartres  gives  of  the  convent  of  St.  Fara  shows  a 


1  Ivon.  Decret.  P.  vi.  c.  50  et  seq. 
— Panorni.  Lib.  in.  c.  84  et  seq. 

2  Ivon.  Epist.  200. 

3  Quod  ultra  modura  laxaveris  frena 
pudicitise,  in  tantum  at  post  acceptum 
archidiaconatum,  accubante  lateribus 
tuis    plebe    muliercularum,   multam 


genueris  plebem  puerorum  et  puella- 
rum. — Ibid.  Epist.  277. 

4  Est  etiam  eis  publica  et  inexpug- 
nabilis  cum  mulieribus  familiaritas, 
quibus  illse,  promissis  et  praemissis 
obligatse  munusculis,  dies  iniquitatis 
et  noctes  infamise  vindicare  compro- 
bantur. — Hildebert.  Cenoman.  Epist. 
38.  (Lib.  II.  Epist.  25.) 


HEREDITARY    TRANSMISSION.  279 

promiscuous  and  shameless  prostitution,  on  the  part  of  the 
nuns  of  that  institution,  even  more  degrading.1  Instances 
like  these  could  be  almost  indefinitely  multiplied,  such  as 
that  of  St.  Mary  of  Argentueil,  reformed  by  Heloise,  the 
great  foundation  of  St.  Denis,  previous  to  the  abbacy  of 
Suger,  and  that  of  St.  Gildas  de  Euys  in  Britanny,  as  de- 
scribed by  Abelard.2  It  is  true  that  some  partial  reform  was 
effected  by  St.  Bernard,  but  the  austerities  of  the  new  orders 
founded  by  enthusiasts  like  him  and  St.  Bruno,  Robert  d'Ar- 
brissel  and  St.  Norbert,  did  not  cure  the  ineradicable  vices 
of  the  older  establishments. 

With  such  examples  before  us,  it  is  not  difficult  to  believe 
the  truth  of  the  denunciations  with  which  the  celebrated 
Raoul  of  Poitiers,  whose  fiery  zeal  gained  for  him  the  dis- 
tinctive appellation  of  Ardens,  lashed  the  vices  of  his 
fellows ;  nor  can  we  conclude  that  it  was  mere  rhetorical 
amplification  which  led  him  to  declare  that  the  clergy,  who 
should  be  models  for  their  flocks,  were  more  shameless  and 
abandoned  than  those  whose  lives  it  was  their  duty  to  guide.3 

The  natural  result  of  such  a  state  of  morals  was  the  pre- 
valence of  the  hereditary  principle  against  which  the  church 
had  so  long  and  so  perseveringly  striven.  How  completely 
this  came  to  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  course,  is  shown  by 
a  contemporary  charter  to  the  ancient  monastery  of  Beze,  by 
which  a  priest  named  Germain,  on  entering  it  bestowed  upon 
it   his  holding,  consisting  of  certain  specified  tithes.     This 


1  Audivi  turpissimam  faraam  de 
monasterio  Sanctse  Parse,  quod  jam 
non  locus  sanctimonialium  sed  mulie- 
rum  daemonialium  prostibulum  dicen- 
dum  est,  corpora  sua  ad  turpes  usus 
omrri  generi  hominum  prostituen- 
tium. — Ivon.  Epist.  70. 

2  Martene  et  Durand.  T.  V.  p.  1142- 
3.  Honorii  PP.  II.  Epist.  91.     A  con 


tempted  the  same  reform,  but  were 
unsuccessful. — Roberti  de  Monte 
Chron.  ann.  1143. 

3  Nonne  qui  nocentes  deberemus. 
absolvere,  eis  malo  exemplo  nocemus? 
Nonne  qui  deberemus  pollutos  lavare, 
vitiorum  nostrorum  contagione  alios 

polluitnus? Sed  nos,hodieindigni 

sacerdotes  quid  dicemus  qui  cseteris 


temporary  chronicler  records  as  a  hominibus  non  majores  sed  deteriores 
matter  of  special  wonder  that  John  j  sumus  ?  Qui  cum  inconspectu  homi- 
of  Salisbury,  Bishop  of  Chartres,  forced  '  num  gradu  sacerdotalis  ordinis  celsi- 
his  canons  to  live  in  cloisters  according  '  ores  cseteris  videamur,  tamen  caeteris 
to  the  rule  of  St.  Augustine;  and  he  j  inferiores  vita  moribusque  jacemus? 
adds  that  stimulated  by  this  example  Radulph.  Ardent.  T.  II.  P.  ii.  Homil. 
his  uncle  John  of  Lisieux,  and  his  25. — See  also  Homil.  21. 
successor    Geoffrey    of    Chartres,   at- 1 


280 


FRANCE. 


deed  of  gift  is  careful  to  declare  the  assent  of  the  sons  of  the 
donor,  showing  that  the  title  of  the  monastery  would  not 
have  been  considered  good  as  against  the  claims  of  Germain's 
descendants  had  they  not  joined  in  the  conveyance.1 

When,  in  the  presence  of  so  stiff-necked  and  evil  disposed 
a  generation,  all  human  efforts  seemed  unavailing  to  secure 
respect  for  the  canons  of  councils  and  decretals  of  popes,  we 
need  scarcely  wonder  if  recourse  was  had  to  the  miraculous 
agencies  which  so  often  proved  efficacious  in  subduing  the 
minds  of  men.  Wondrous  stories,  accordingly,  were  not 
wanting,  to  show  how  offended  Heaven  sometimes  gave  in  this 
world  a  foretaste  of  the  wrath  to  come,  awaiting  those  who 
lived  in  habitual  disregard  of  the  teachings  of  the  church. 
Thus  Peter  the  Venerable  relates  with  much  unction  how  a 
priest,  who  had  abandoned  himself  to  carnal  indulgences, 
died  amid  the  horrors  of  anticipated  hell-fire.  Visible 
to  him  alone,  the  demons  chuckling  around  his  death-bed 
heated  the  frying-pan  of  burning  fat  in  which  he  was  incon- 
tinently to  be  plunged,  while  a  drop  flying  from  the  sputtering 
mass  seared  him  to  the  bone,  as  a  dreadful  material  sign  that 
his  agony  was  not  the  distempered  imagining  of  a  tortured 
conscience.2 

If  Heaven  thus  miraculously  manifested  its  anger,  it  was 
equally  ready  to  welcome  back  the  repentant  sinner.  In  the 
first  energy  of  the  reforms  of  St.  Bernard,  a  priest  entered 
the  abbey  of  Clairvaux.  The  rigor  of  the  Cistercian  disci- 
pline wore  out  his  enthusiasm;  he  fled  from  the  convent, 
returned  to  his  parish,  and,  according  to  the  general  custom, 
("  sicut  multis  consuetudinis  est")  took  to  himself  a  concubine, 
and  soon  saw  a  family  increasing  around  him.  The  holy  St. 
Bernard  chanced  to  pass  that  way  and  accepted  the  priest's 
warm  hospitality  without  recognizing  him.  When  the  Saint 
was  ready  to  depart  in  the  morning  he  found  that  his  host 
was  absent  performing  his  functions  in  the  church ;  and  turn- 


1  Hoc  totum  factum  est  rogatu  Ger- 
mani  presbyteri,  filiorumque  ejus,  qui 
post  inde  uoster  effectus  est  moua- 
chus.  —  Chron.  Besuens.  Chart,  de 
tenement.  German,  presbyt. 


2  Petri  Venerab.  de  Mirac.  Lib.  i. 
c.  25.  A  miracle  equally  significant 
wrung  a  confession  of  his  weakness 
from  the  Dean  of  Minden  in  1167. — 
Chron.  Episc.  Mindens.  c.  26. 


CALIXTUS   II.  281 

ing  to  one  of  the  children,  he  sent  him  with  a  message  to  his 
father.  Though  the  child  had  been  a  deaf-mute  from  birth, 
he  promptly  performed  the  errand.  Boused  by  the  miracle 
to  a  sense  of  his  iniquity,  the  apostate  rushed  to  the  Saint, 
threw  himself  at  his  feet,  confessed  who  he  was,  and  entreated 
to  be  taken  back  to  the  monastery.  St.  Bernard,  touched  by 
his  repentance,  promised  to  call  for  him  on  his  return.  To 
this  the  priest  objected,  on  the  ground  that  he  might  die 
during  the  interval,  but  was  comforted  with  the  assurance 
that  if  he  died  in  such  a  frame  of  mind,  he  would  be  received 
by  God  as  a  monk.  When  St.  Bernard  returned,  the  repent- 
ant sinner  was  dead.  Inquiring  as  to  the  ceremonies  of  his 
interment,  he  was  told  that  the  corpse  had  been  buried  in  its 
priestly  garments;  whereupon  he  ordered  the  grave  to  be 
opened,  and  it  was  found  arrayed,  not  in  its  funeral  robes, 
but  in  full  Cistercian  habit  and  tonsure,  showing  that  God 
had  fulfilled  the  promises  made  in  his  name.1 

Such  was  the  condition  of  the  Gallican  church  when,  in 
1119,  Calixtus  II.  stepped  from  the  archiepiscopal  see  of 
Vienne  to  the  chair  of  St.  Peter.  His  first  great  object  was 
to  end  the  quarrel  with  the  empire  on  the  subject  of  investi- 
tures, the  vicissitudes  of  which  rendered  the  papacy  at  the 
time  of  his  accession  an  exile  from  Italy ;  his  second  was  to 
carry  out  the  reforms  so  long  and  so  fruitlessly  urged  by  his 
predecessors.  To  accomplish  both  these  results  he  lost  no 
time  in  summoning  a  great  council  to  assemble  at  Eheims,  and 
when  it  met  in  November,  1119,  no  less  than  fifteen  arch- 
bishops, more  than  two  hundred  bishops,  and  numerous 
abbots  responded  to  the  call,  representing  Italy,  France, 
Aquitaine,  Spain,  Germany,  and  England.  The  attempted 
reconciliation  with  the  Emperor  Henry  V.  failed,  but  the 
vices  and  corruptions  of  the  church  were  vigorously  attacked 
and  sternly  prohibited  for  the  future.  All  commerce  with 
concubines  or  wives  was  positively  forbidden  under  pain 
of  deprivation  of  benefice  and  function.  No  choice  was 
granted  the  offender,  for  continuance  in  his  sin  after  expulsion 


1  S.  Bernardi  Vitse  Prima?  Lib.  vn.  cap.  xxi. 


282  FRANCE. 

was  punishable  with  excommunication ;  and  the  hereditary 
transmission  of  ecclesiastical  dignities  and  property  was 
strictly  prohibited.1  Whether  it  was  the  lofty  character  of 
the  new  pope,  his  royal  blood  and  French  extraction,  or 
whether  the  solemnity  of  the  occasion  impressed  men's  minds, 
it  is  not  easy  now  to  guess,  but  unquestionably  these  pro- 
ceedings produced  greater  effect  upon  the  Transalpine 
churches  than  any  previous  efforts  of  the  Holy  See.  Calix- 
tus  was  long  regarded  as  the  real  author  of  sacerdotal  celibacy 
in  France,  and  his  memory  has  been  embalmed  in  the  jing- 
ling verses  which  express  the  dissatisfaction  and  spite  of  the 
clergy,  deprived  of  their  ancestral  privileges. 

0  bone  Calliste,  nunc  clerus  odit  te  ; 

Olim  presbyteri  poterant  uxoribus  uti ; 

Hoc  detruxisti  quando  tu  papa  fuisti, 

Ergo  tuum  festutn  nunquam  celebratur  lionestum.2 

Calixtus  was  not  a  man  to  rest  half  way,  nor  was  he  con- 
tent with  an  empty  promise  of  obedience.  Under  the  pres- 
sure of  his  influence,  the  French  prelates  found  themselves 
obliged  to  take  measures  for  the  vigorous  enforcement  of  the 
canons.  What  those  measures  were,  and  the  disposition  with 
which  they  were  received,  may  be  understood  from  the  re- 
sultant proceedings  in  Normandy.  Geoffrey,  Archbishop  of 
Eouen,  on  leaving  the  council  of  Eheims,  promptly  called  a 
synod,  which  assembled  ere  the  month  was  out.  The  canon 
prohibiting  female  intercourse  roused  the  deepest  abhorrence 
and  the  fiercest  resistance  among  his  clergy,  and  they  in- 
veighed loudly  against  the  innovation.  Geoffrey  singled  out 
one  who  rendered  himself  particularly  prominent  in  the 
tumult,  and  caused  him  to  be  seized  and  cast  into  prison; 
then,  leaving  the  church,  he  called  in  his  guards,  whom,  with 
acute   anticipation  of  trouble,  he  had  posted   in  readiness. 


1  Concil.  Remens.  ann.  1119,  can.    vious  June.     (Concil.   Tolosan.  ann. 
4,  5. — "  Nullus  episcopus,  nullus  pres- 1  1119,  can.  8.) 

byter,  nullus  omnino  de  clero  eocle-  j      2  c  thege  verges  ag     tm 

Biastioasdignitate  vel  beneficia  cuih- j  J  in  ^  d       and  attributes  to 

bet    quasi   hereditario  jure    derelin- L^  effortg  of  Ctftx%JU  |h     8 
quat.       Calixtus  had  already  caused    gion       saoerdotal  marriage  in  France, 
this  provision  to  be  adopted  by  the  ;  ,n.  .      ,     .  _.     N 

*i,    e  m     i  i    u   •    xi  (Griaunone,  Apoloeia,  c.  xiv.) 

council  of  Toulouse,  held  in  the  pre-    v  '     t      °    '  ' 


EFFECTS    OF    THE    REFORMATION. 


283 


The  rude  soldiery  fell  upon  the  unarmed  priests,  some  ot 
whom  promptly  escaped;  the  rest,  grasping  what  weapons 
they  could  find,  made  a  gallant  resistance,  and  succeeded  in 
beating  back  the  assailants.  A  mob  speedily  collected, 
which  took  sides  with  the  archbishop.  Assisted  by  this  un- 
expected reinforcement,  the  guards  again  forced  their  way 
into  the  church,  where  they  beat  and  maltreated  the  unfortu- 
nate clerks  to  their  heart's  content ;  when,  as  the  chronicler 
quaintly  observes,  the  synod  broke  up  in  confusion,  and 
the  members  fled  without  awaiting  the  archiepiscopal  bene- 
diction.1 

The  immediate  effect  of  the  reformation  thus  inaugurated 
may  perhaps  be  judged  with  sufficient  accuracy  by  the  story 
of  Abelard  and  Heloise,  which  occurred  about  this  period. 
That  Abelard  was  a  canon  when  that  immortal  love  arose, 
was  not,  in  such  a  state  of  morals,  any  impediment  to  the 
gratification  of  his  passion,  nor  did  it  diminish  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  canon  Fulbert  at  the  marriage  of  his  niece,  for  such 
marriages,  as  yet,  were  valid  by  ecclesiastical  law.  In  her 
marvellous  self-abnegation,  however,  Heloise  recognized  that 
while  the  fact  of  his  openly  keeping  a  mistress,  and  acknow- 
ledging Astrolabius  as  his  illegitimate  son,  would  be  no  bar 
to  his  preferment,  and  would  leave  open  to  him  a  career 
equal  to  the  wildest  dreams  of  his  ambition,  yet  to  admit 
that  he  had  sanctified  their  love  by  marriage,  and  had  repair- 
ed, as  far  as  possible,  the  wrong  which  he  had  committed, 
would  ruin  his  prospects  forever.  In  a  worldly  point  of 
view  it  was  better  for  him,  as  a  churchman,  to  have  the  re- 
putation of  shameless  immorality  than  that  of  a  loving  and 
pious  husband ;  and  this  was  so  evidently  a  matter  of  course 
that  she  willingly  sacrificed  everything,  and  practised  every 
deceit,  that  he  might  be  considered  a  reckless  libertine,  who 
had  refused  her  the  only  reparation  in  his  power.  Such  was 
the  standard  of  morals  created  by  the  church,  and  such  were 
the  conclusions  inevitably  drawn  from  them.2 


1  Orderic.  Vital.  P.    in.    Lib.    xii. 
c.  13. 

2  How  great  a  falling  off  there  had 
been  in   the  standard   of  virtue  re- 


quired in  ecclesiastics  is  shown  by  a 
comparison  of  this  with  the  rules 
enforced  at  an  earlier  period.  Thus, 
in    the     fifth     century,     Theophilus, 


284 


FRANCE. 


Yet  there  are  evidences  that  the  efforts  of  Calixtus,  and  of 
the  fathers  whose  assembled  authority  was  concentrated  at 
Eheims,  did  not  at  once  and  altogether  eradicate  a  custom 
which  had  now  become  traditional.  Soon  afterwards  King 
Louis-le-Gros,  in  granting  a  charter  to  the  church  of  St.  Cor- 
nelius at  Compiegne,  felt  it  necessary  to  accompany  the  privi- 
leges bestowed  with  a  restriction,  worded  as  though  it  were 
a  novelty,  to  the  effect  that  those  in  holy  orders  connected 
with  the  foundation  should  have  no  wives — a  condition 
which  shows  how  little  confidence  existed  in  the  mind  of  the 
sagacious  prince  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  canons  so  portent- 
ously promulgated  by  the  rulers,  and  so  energetically  resisted 
by  the  ruled.1 


Bishop  of  Alexandria,  decided  that  a 
man  who,  as  lector,  had  been  punish- 
ed for  a  lapse  from  virtue,  and  had 
subsequently  risen  to  the  grade  of 
priesthood,  must  be  expelled  on  ac- 
count of  his  previous  sin. — Theophili 
Alexandrin.  Commonitor.  can.  v. 
(Harduin.  I.  1198).  This  contrast 
may  be  further  observed  in  the  answer 
of  Innocent  III.  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Lunden,  who  inquired  in  1213  whether 
a  man  having  had  two  concubines  was 
ineligible  to  the  priesthood  as  a  dlga- 
mus.  To  this  Innocent  replied  that  no 
matter  how  many  concubines  he  might 
have  had,  either  at  one  time  or  in  suc- 
cession, he  did  not  incur  the  irregu- 
larity of  digamy.  (Innocent  III.  Regest. 
Lib.  xvi.  Epist.  118.)  Such  was  the 
result  of  seven  centuries  of  assiduous 
sacerdotalism. 

The  curiously  artificial  standard  of 
morals  thus  created  may  be  esti- 
mated from  the  case  of  the  archdea- 
con of  Lisieux,  who  refused  to  accept 
an  election  to  the  see  of  that  place  on 
account  of  his  inability  to  maintain 


the  purity  requisite  for  the  episcopal 
office.  Vanquished  at  length  by  the 
importunity  of  his  friends,  he  was 
consecrated,  and  resolutely  under- 
took to  abandon  his  evil  habits.  The 
unaccustomed  privation  brought  on 
a  fearful  disease,  but  though  assured 
that  his  life  would  prove  a  sacrifice  if 
he  persisted  in  his  resolution,  he  re- 
sisted all  entreaties,  and  refused  to 
purchase  existence  by  sullying  his 
position.  He  thus  fell  a  martyr  to  a 
tenderness  of  conscience  which  had 
not  prevented  him  from  indulgence 
while  filling  the  responsible  position 
of  archdeacon. — Girald.  Cambrens. 
Gemm.  Eccles.  Dist.  n.  cap.  xi. 

1  Ut  clerici  ejusdem  ecclesise  sicut 
usque  modo  vixerunt  permaneant ;  hoc 
tamen  prsecipimus  ut  presbyteri,  dia- 
coni,  subdiaconi  nullatenus  deinceps 
uxores  concubinas  habeant ;  cseteri 
vero  cujuscumque  ordinis  clerici  prop- 
ter fornicationem,  licentiam  habeant 
ducendi  uxores.  —  Du  Cange,  s.  v. 
Concubina. 


XVII. 
NORMAN  ENGLAND. 


We  Lave  already  seen  what  was  the  condition  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  church  when  William  the  Manzer  overran  the  island 
with  his  horde  of  adventurers.  Making  all  due  allowance 
for  the  fact  that  our  authorities  are  mostly  of  the  class  whose 
inclination  would  lead  them  to  misrepresent  the  conquered 
and  to  exaggerate  the  improvement  attributable  to  the  con- 
quest, it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  standard  of  morality  was 
extremely  low,  and  that  the  clergy  were  scarcely  distinguish- 
able from  the  laity  in  purity  of  life  or  devotion  to  their 
sacred  calling./ 

If  the  reformatory  efforts  of  the  popes  had  not  penetrated 
into  the  kingdom  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  it  was  hardly  to 
be  expected  that  they  would  excite  attention  amid  the  turmoil 
attendant  upon  the  settlement  of  the  new  order  of  political 
affairs  and  the  division  of  the  spoils  among  the  conquerors. 
Accordingly,  even  the  vigilance  of  Gregory  VII.  appears  to 
have  virtually  overlooked  the  distant  land  of  Britain,  con- 
scious, no  doubt,  that  his  efforts  would  be  vain,  even  though 
the  influence  of  Eome  had  been  freely  thrown  upon  the  side 
of  the  Norman  invader,  and  had  been  of  no  little  assistance 
to  him  in  his  preparations  for  the  desperate  enterprise.  In 
fact,  though  William  saw  fit  to  aid  in  the  suppression  of 
matrimony  among  the  priests  of  his  hereditary  dominions, 
and  had  thereby  earned  the  grateful  praises  of  Gregory  him- 
self,1 he  does  not  seem  to  have  regarded  the  morals  of  his 
new  subjects  as  worthy  of  any  special  attention.     It  is  true 


1  Tamen  in  hoc  quod  .  .  .  presbyteros 
uxores,  laicos  decimas  quas  detine- 
bant,  etiam  jurainento  dimittere  cora- 
pulit,  cseteris  regibus  se  satis  proba- 


biliorem  ac  magis  honorandum  os- 
tendit. — Grregor.  VII.  Regist.  Lib.  ix. 
Epist.  5. 


286  NORMAN    ENGLAND. 

that  in  Lis  system  of  transferring  all  power  from  the  subject 
to  the  dominant  race,  when  Saxon  bishops  were  to  be  ejected 
and  their  places  filled  with  his  own  creatures,  it  was  necessary 
for  him  to  effect  his  purpose  in  a  canonical  way,  and  to  pro- 
cure the  degradation  of  his  victims  at  the  hands  of  the 
church  itself,  as  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  lay  unhallowed 
hands  upon  their  consecrated  heads,  or  to  remove  prelates  from 
their  sees  on  questions  of  mere  political  expediency.  To 
accomplish  this,  the  scandals  and  irregularities  of  their  lives 
afforded  the  promptest  and  most  effective  excuse,  and  it  was 
freely  used.1  That  no  effort  was  made  to  effect  a  reform  in 
the  ranks  of  the  clergy  is  at  the  same  time  evident  from  an 
epistle  addressed  in  1071  to  William  by  Alexander  II.,  in 
which,  while  praising  his  zeal  in  suppressing  the  heresy  of 
simony,  and  exhorting  him  to  fresh  exertion  in  the  good 
work,  no  mention  whatever  is  made  of  the  kindred  error  of 
Nicolitism,  which  is  usually  inseparable  in  the  papal  diatribes 
of  the  period.2  Equally  conclusive  is  the  fact  that  when,  in 
1075,  Lanfranc  held  a  national  council  in  London  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reforming  the  English  church,  canons  were  passed  to 
restrain  simony,  to  prevent  incestuous  marriages,  and  to  effect 
other  needful  changes,  but  nothing  was  said  respecting  sacer- 
dotal marriage,  at  that  time  the  principal  object  of  Gregory's 
vigorous  measures.3 

The  first  steps  to  check  the  irregularities  of  the  priesthood 
appear  to  have  been  taken  in  1076,  at  the  council  of  Winches- 
ter, and  the  extreme  tenderness  there  displayed  by  Lanfranc 
for  the  weakness  of  his  flock  shows  how  necessary  was  the 
utmost  caution  in  treating  a  question  evidently  new,  and  one 
which  deprived  the  English  clergy  of  a  privilege  to  which 


1  The  vigor  with  which  these  changes  II.  "  Litifeldensis  vero  episcopus,  qui 
were  carried  out  is  visible  in  the  synods  ;  apud  legatos  vestros  de  incontinentia 
of  Winchester  and  Windsor  in  1070,  j  carnis,  cui  uxor  publice  habita  filiique 
where  numerous  bishops  and  abbots  i  procreati  testimonium  perhibebant, 
were  deposed  on  various  pleas.  (See  j  aliisque  criminibus  accusatus"  (apud 
Roger  of  Hoveden,  ann.  1070.)     The  I  Baron,  ann.  1070,  No.  26). 


character  of  the  prelates  may  be  judged 
from  the  description  of  the  Bishop  of 
Litchfield  (Chester)  by  Lanfranc  in  a 
letter  of  the  same  year  to  Alexander 


2  Alexand.  II.  Epist.  S3. 

3  Wilkins  Concil.  Mag.   Britan.   I. 
363. 


FIRST    ATTEMPTS    AT    REFORMATION.  287 

no  taint  of  guilt  had  previously  been  attached.  "We  have 
evidence  that  when  Lanfranc  could  act  according  to  his  own 
convictions,  he  was  inclined  to  enforce  the  absolute  rule  of 
celibacy,1  and  we  may  therefore  conclude  that  on  this  occasion 
he  was  overruled  by  the  convictions  of  his  brother  prelates 
that  it  was  impossible  to  obtain  obedience.  All  that  the 
council  would  venture  upon  was  a  general  declaration  against 
the  wives  of  men  in  orders,  and  it  permitted  parish  priests  to 
retain  their  consorts,  contenting  itself  with  forbidding  future 
marriages,  and  enjoining  on  the  bishops  that  they  should 
thereafter  ordain  no  one  in  the  diaconate  or  priesthood  with- 
out a  pledge  not  to  marry  in  future.2 

Such  legislation  could  only  be  irritating  and  inconclusive. 
It  abandoned  the  principle  for  which  Eome  had  been  con- 
tending, and  thus  its  spirit  of  worldly  temporizing  deprived 
it  of  all  respect  and  influence.  Obedience  to  it  could  be 
therefore  invoked  on  no  higher  ground  than  that  of  an  arbi- 
trary and  unjustifiable  command,  and  accordingly  it  received 
so  small  a  share  of  attention  that  when,  some  twenty-six  years 
later,  the  holy  Anselm,  at  the  great  council  of  London  in  1102, 
endeavored  to  enforce  the  reform,  the  restrictions  which  he 
ordered  were  exclaimed  against  as  unheard  of  novelties, 
which,  being  impossible  to  human  nature,  could  only  result 
in  indiscriminate  vice,  bringing  disgrace  upon  the  church.3 
The  tenor  of  the  canons  of  this  council,  indeed,  proves  that 


1  Thus,  on  one  occasion,  when  exa-  ■  fiteantur   ut   uxores  non  haheant. — 


mining  a  deacon,  he  inquired  whether 


Wilkins  I.  367. 


he  had  a  wife.  The  man  replied  that  j  Polydor  Virgil  describes  a  council 
he  had,  and  further  declared  that  he  of  London  held  by  Lanfranc  in  1078, 
would  not  give  her  up.  Lanfranc  j  in  which — "Ante  omnia  mores  sacer- 
therefore  ordered  him  to  be  degraded  dotum  parum  puri  quamproxime  po- 
to  the  inferior  orders,  and  not  to  be  tuit,  ad  priscorum  patrum  regulam 
restored    to    the    diaconate   until    he  ;  revocati  sunt,  estque  illis  in  posterum 


should  live  chastely  and  pledge  him- 
self to  continue  so.  (Lanfranci  Epist. 
21  ;  Cf.  Epist.  22.) 

2  Decretumque  est  ut  nullus  canoni- 
cus  uxorem  habeat.  Sacerdotes  vero 
in  castellis  vel  in  vicis  habitantes, 
habentes  uxores  non  cogantur  ut  di- 
mittant ;  non  habentes  interdicantur 
ut  habeant ;  et  deinceps  caventur  epis- 


tempus  recte  vivendi  modus  prsescrip- 
tus"  (Angl.  Hist.  Lib.  ix.)  ;  but  he  has 
evidently  mixed  together  the  proceed- 
ings of  various  synods. 

3  Henric.  Huntingdon.  Lib.  vn. — 
Matt.  Paris  ann.  1102.  —  Henry  of 
Huntingdon,  though  an  archdeacon, 
was  himself  the  son  of  a  priest,  and 
therefore  was  not  disposed  to  regard 


copi  ut  sacerdotes  vel  diaconos  non  i  with  complacency  the  stigma  attached 
praesumant  ordinare,  nisi  prius  pro-  [  to  his  birth  by  the  new  order  of  things. 


288  NORMAN    ENGLAND. 

the  previous  injunctions  had  been  utterly  disregarded.  At 
the  same  time  they  manifest  a  much  stronger  determination 
to  eradicate  the  evil,  though  still  far  more  lenient  than  the 
contemporary  Continental  legislation.  No  archdeacon,  priest, 
or  deacon  could  marry,  nor,  if  married,  could  retain  his  wife. 
If  a  subdeacon,  after  professing  chastity,  married,  he  was 
to  be  subjected  to  the  same  regulation.  No  priest,  as  long 
as  he  was  involved  in  such  unholy  union,  could  celebrate 
mass;  if  he  ventured  to  do  so,  no  one  was  to  listen  to  him; 
and  he  was,  moreover,  to  be  deprived  of  his  legal  status  in 
court.  A  profession  of  chastity  was  to  be  exacted  at  ordi- 
nation to  the  subdiaconate  and  to  the  higher  grades ;  and, 
finally,  the  children  of  priests  were  forbidden  to  inherit  their 
fathers'  churches.1 

One  symptom  of  weakness  is  observable  in  all  this.  The 
council  apparently  did  not  venture  to  prescribe  any  punish- 
ment for  the  infraction  of  the  rules  thus  laid  down.  If  this 
arose  from  timidity,  St.  Anselm  did  not  share  it,  for,  when 
he  proceeded  to  put  the  canons  in  practice,  we  find  him 
threatening  his  contumacious  ecclesiastics  with  deprivation 
for  persistence  in  their  irregularities.  A  letter  of  instruction 
from  him  to  William,  Archdeacon  of  Canterbury,  shows  the 
earnestness  with  which  he  entered  upon  the  reform,  and  also 
affords  an  instructive  insight  into  the  difficulties  of  the  enter- 
prise, and  the  misery  which  the  forcible  sundering  of  family 
ties  caused  among  those  who  had  never  doubted  the  legality 
and  propriety  of  their  marriages.  Some  ecclesiastics  of  rank 
sent  their  discarded  wives  to  manors  at  a  distance  from  their 
dwellings,  and  these  St.  Anselm  directs  shall  not  be  molested 
if  they  wrill  promise  to  hold  no  intercourse  except  in  the 
presence  of  legitimate  witnesses.    Some  priests  were  afraid  to 


Concil.  Londin.  ami.  1105. — Can.  Ibret;  nee  si  celebraverit,  ejus  missa 


5.  Ut  nullus  archidiaconus,  presbyter, 
diaconus,  canonicus  uxorem  ducat, 
vel  ductam  retineat.  Subdiaconus 
vero  quilibet,  qui  canonicus  non  est, 
si  post  professionem  castitatis  uxorem 
duxerit,  eadem  regula  constringatur. 
Can.  6.  Ut  presbyter  quamdiu  illi- 
citam  conversationem  mulieris  liabu- 
erit,  non  sit  legalis,  nee  missam  cele- 


audiatur. 

Can.  7.  Ut  nullus  ad  subdiaconatum 
aut  supra  ordinetur  sine  professione 
castitatis. 

Can.  8.  Ut  filii  presbyterorura  non 
sint  hseredes  ecclesiarum  patrum  suo- 
rum.— Wilkins.  I.  382  (Eadmer.  Hist. 
Novor.  Lib.  in.  ann.  1102). 


ST.    ANSELM    OF    CANTERBURY. 


289 


proceed  to  extremities  with  their  wives,  and  for  these  weak 
brethren  grace  is  accorded  until  the  approaching  Lent,  pro- 
vided they  do  not  attempt  to  perform  their  sacred  functions, 
and  can  find  substitutes  of  undoubted  chastity  to  minister  in 
their  places.  The  kindred  of  the  unfortunate  women  ap- 
parently endeavored  to  avert  the  blow  by  furious  menaces 
against  those  who  should  render  obedience,  and  these  insti- 
gators of  evil  are  to  be  restrained  by  threats  of  excommuni- 
cation.1 In  the  enforcement  of  these  reforms  he  seemed  to 
meet  with  questions  for  which  he  was  not  prepared,  for  about 
this  time  we  find  him  seeking  instructions'  from  Paschal  II. 
on  several  knotty  points:  whether  a  priest  liviug  with  his 
wife  can  be  allowed  to  administer  the  viaticum  at  the  death- 
bed in  the  absence  of  one  professing  continence ;  and  what 
is  to  be  done  with  him  if  he  refuses  his  ministration  on  the 
ground  that  he  is  not  allowed  to  celebrate  mass.2 

Notwithstanding  these  zealous  efforts  of  the  primate,  and 
the  countenance  of  Henry  Beauclerc,  in  whose  presence  the 
council  was  held,  Eadmer  is  forced  to  sorrowfully  admit  that 
its  canons  received  but  scant  respect.  Many  of  the  priests 
adopted  a  kind  of  passive  resistance,  and,  locking  up  their 
churches,  suspended  the  performance  of  all  sacred  rites.3 
Even  in  Anselm's  own  diocese,  ecclesiastics  were  found  who 
obstinately  refused  either  to  part  with  their  wives  or  to  pre- 
termit their  functions,  and  who,  when  duly  excommunicated, 
laughed  at  the  sentence,  and  continued  to  pollute  the  church 
with  their  unhallowed  ministry.4     Soon   after  this  Anselm 


1  Anselmi  Lib.  in.  Epist.  62. 

2  Paschalis  PP.  II.  Epist.  lxxiv.— 
Paschal  replies  that  it  is  better  to 
have  the  ministrations  of  an  unchaste 
priest  than  to  die  unhouselled  ;  and 
that  a  priest  refusing  his  offices  under 
such  circumstances  is  to  be  punished 
as  a  homicide  of  souls.  This  aban- 
doned the  Hildebrandine  theory,  but 
Anselm  was  more  consistent  in  assum- 
ing that  a  layman  could  administer 
baptism  in  preference  to  an  unchaste 
priest.  (Lib.  iv.  Epist.  41.) 

3  Unde  plures  eorum  ostia  ecclesia- 
rum  obseraverunt,  omittentes  omnia 

19 


officia  ecclesiastica.  —  Simeon  Dunel- 
mens.  (Pagi  IV.  348.) 

4  See  the  confirmation  of  excom- 
munication in  which  St.  Anselm  ex- 
haled his  fiery  indignation  at  those 
who  continued  with  M  bestiali  insania" 
to  defy  the  authorities  of  the  church. 
(Anselmi  Lib.  m.  Epist.  112.) 

Anselm  was  not  entirely  without 
assistance  in  his  efforts.  One  of  his 
monks,  Reginald,  of  the  great  monas- 
tery of  Canterbury,  wrote  a  fearfully 
diffuse  paraphrase,  in  Leonine  verse, 
of  the  life  of  St.  Malchus.  It  was  an 
evil-minded  generation,  indeed,  that 


290 


NORMAN    ENGLAND. 


fell  into  disfavor  with  the  king  and  was  exiled.  His  absence 
promised  immunity,  and  the  clergy  were  not  slow  to  avail 
themselves  of  it.  In  1104  one  of  his  friends,  in  writing  to 
him,  bewails  the  utter  demoralization  of  the  kingdom,  of 
which  the  worst  manifestation  was  that  priests  still  continued 
to  marry ;  and  two  years  later  another  letter  informs  him  that 
those  who  had  apparently  reformed  their  evil  ways  were  all 
returning  to  their  previous  life  of  iniquity.  Finally,  Henry 
I.  resolved  to  turn  to  account  this  clerical  backsliding,  as  a 
financial  expedient  to  recruit  his  exhausted  treasury.  All 
who  were  suspected  of  disobedience  to  the  canons  of  the 
council  of  London  were  seized  and  tried,  and  the  property  of 
those  who  could  be  proved  guilty  was  confiscated.  By  this 
time  Anselm  had  been  reconciled  to  the  king,  and  he  promptly 
interfered  to  check  so  gross  a  violation  of  ecclesiastical  im- 
munity. His  remonstrances  were  met  by  Henry  with  well- 
feigned  surprise,  and  finally  the  matter  was  compromised  by 
discharging  those  who  had  not  been  fined,  while  those  who 
had  been  forced  to  pay  were  promised  three  years'  undisturbed 
possession  of  their  positions.1 

That  it  was  impossible  to  effect  suddenly  so  great  a  change 
in  the  habits  and  lives  of  the  Anglican  clergy  was,  indeed, 
admitted  by  Paschal  II.  himself,  when,  in  1107,  he  wrote  to 
Anselm  concerning  the  questions  connected  with  the  children 
of  priests.  "While  reminding  him  of  the  rules  of  the  church, 
he  adds  that  as,  in  England,  the  larger  and  better  portion  of 
the  clergy  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  prohibition,  he  grants 
to  the  primate  power  of  dispensation,  by  which,  in  view  of 
the  sad  necessity  of  the  times,  he  can  admit  to  the  sacred 
offices  those  born  during  their  parents'  priesthood,  who  are 
fitted  for  it  by  their  education  and  purity  of  life.  A  second 
epistle  on  the  same  subject  attests  the  perplexity  of  the  pope, 
recalling  to  Anselm's  recollection  his  former  injunctions,  and 
recommending  that,  as  there  was  no  personal  guilt  involved, 


could  resist  such  a  denunciation  of  mar- 
riage as  that  pronounced  by  the  saint. 
Plenum  sorde  thorum  subeam  plenumque  do- 

lorum  ? 
Plenus,  ait,  tenebris  thalamus  sordet  mulie- 

bris. 
Displicet  amplexus,  horror  mihi  copula,  sexus. 


Conjugium  vile,  vilescit  sponsa,  cubile. 
Nolo  thorum  talem,  desidero  spiritualem. 

(Croke's  Rhyming  Latin  Verse,  p.  67.) 

1  Eadmer.   Hist.  Novor.  Lib. 
Anselmi  Lib.  in.  Epist.  109. 


iv. — 


HENRY    I.    UNDERTAKES    A   REFORMATION.       291 


those  of  the  proscribed  class  who  were  in  orders  should,  if 
worthy  of  their  positions,  be  allowed  to  retain  them,  without 
the  privilege  of  advancement.1 

It  may  be  remarked  that  thus  far  the  proceedings  of  the 
reformers  were  directed  solely  against  the  marriage  of  eccle- 
siastics. It  may  possibly  be  that  this  arose  from  general 
conjugal  virtue,  and  that,  satisfied .  with  the  privilege,  no 
other  disorders  prevailed  among  the  clergy;  but  it  is  more 
probable  that  the  heresy  of  marriage  was  so  heinous  in  the 
eyes  of  the  sacerdotalists,  that  it  rendered  all  other  sins 
venial,  and  that  such  other  sins  might  be  tacitly  passed  over 
in  the  endeavor  to  put  an  end  to  the  greater  enormity.  Be 
this  as  it  may,  the  stubborn  wilfulness  of  the  offenders  only 
provoked  increasing  rigor  on  the  part  of  the  authorities. 
We  have  seen  that  the  council  of  1102  produced  little  result, 
and  that  when  the  secular  power  interfered  to  enforce  its 
canons,  the  church,  jealous  of  its  privileges,  protested,  so 
that  many  priests  retained  their  wives,  and  marriage  was  still 
openly  practised.  King  Henry,  therefore,  at  length,  in  1108, 
summoned  another  council  to  assemble  in  London,  where  he 
urged  the  bishops  to  prosecute  the  good  work,  and  pledged 
his  power  to  their  support.2  Fortified  by  this  and  by  the 
consent  of  the  barons,  they  promulgated  a  series  of  ten  canons, 
whose  stringent  nature  and  liberal  denunciation  of  penalties 
prove  that  the  prelates  felt  themselves  strengthened  by  the 
royal  co-operation  and  able  to  compel  obedience.  The  Nicene 
canon  was  declared  the  unalterable  law  of  the  church ;  those 
ecclesiastics  who  had  disregarded  the  decrees  of  the  previous 
council  were  debarred  from  performing  their  functions  if 
longer  contumacious ;  any  priest  requiring  to  see  his  wife  was 
only  to  do  so  in  the  open  air  and  in  the  presence  of  two 


1  Wilkins,  I.  378-80.— Pascbalis  II. 
Epist.  221. 

2  Multi  nempe  presbyterorum  sta- 
tuta  concilii  Lundoniensis,  necnon 
vindictam  quam  in  eos  rexexercuerat, 
quorum  superius  mentionem  fecimus, 
postponentes,  suas  feminaa  retiue- 
bant,  aut  certe  duxerant  quas  prius 
non  habebant.     Quod   incontinentiae 


crimen  rex  subvertere  cupiens,  adu- 
natis  ad  curiam  suam  in  solemnitate 
Pentecostes  apud  Lundoniam  cunctis 
majoribus  regni,  de  negotio  cum  An- 
selmo  arcbiepiscopo  et  caeteris  episco- 
pis  Angliae  tractavit,  eosque  ad  malum 
ilium  extirpandum  regali  auctoritate 
atque  potentia  fultos  roboravit. — Ead- 
meri  Hist.  Novor.  Lib.  iv. 


292  NORMAN    ENGLAND. 

legitimate  witnesses ;  accusations  of  guilt  were  to  be  met  by 
regular  canonical  purgation,  a  priest  requiring  six  compur- 
gators, a  deacon  four,  and  a  subdeacon  two,  each  of  bis  own 
order.  Disobedience  to  these  canons  was  declared  punishable 
with  deprivation  of  function  and  benefice,  expulsion  from  the 
church,  and  infamy.  Only  eight  days  of  grace  were  allowed ; 
further  persistence  in  wrong  doing  being  visited  with  instant 
excommunication,  and  confiscation  to  the  bishops  of  the 
private  property  of  the  transgressors  and  of  their  women, 
together  with  the  persons  of  the  latter.  A  very  significant 
clause,  moreover,  sHows  that  grasping  officials  had  discovered 
the  speculative  value  of  previous  injunctions,  and  that  the 
degrading  custom  of  selling  indulgence  was  already  in 
common  use,  for  the  council  required  of  all  archdeacons  and 
deans,  under  penalty  of  forfeiture,  an  oath  that  they  would 
not  receive  money  for  conniving  at  infractions  of  the  rule, 
nor  permit  priests  who  kept  women  to  celebrate  mass  or  to 
employ  vicars  to  officiate  for  them.1 

From  the  account  of  the  historian,  we  may  assume  these  to 
be  rather  acts  of  parliament  than  canons  of  a  council,  and 
that  the  assembly  was  convened  for  the  special  purpose  of 
devising  measures  for  subduing  the  recalcitrant  clergy.  The 
temporal  power  was  thus  pledged  to  enforce  the  regulations, 
and  as  so  enterprising  and  resolute  a  monarch  as  Henry  had 
undertaken  the  reform,  -there  can  be  little  doubt  that  he  prose- 
cuted it  with  vigor.  Anselm  died  in  1109,  and  the  clergy 
rejoiced  in  the  hope  that  their  persecution  would  cease  with 
the  removal  of  their  persecutor,  but  the  king  undertook  to 
enforce  the  regulations  of  the  council  of  London  with  more 
vigor  than  ever,  and  soon  obtained  at  least  an  outward  show 
of  obedience.  Eadmer  darkly  intimates  that  the  effect  was 
a  great  increase  of  shocking  crimes  committed  with  those 
relatives  whose  residence  was  allowed,  and  he  is  at  some 
pains  to  argue  that  Anselm  and  his  attempted  reforms  were 
not  responsible  for  such  result.  Finally,  the  ardor  of  the  king 
cooled  off;  ecclesiastical  officials  were  found  readily  accessible 
to  bribes  for  permitting  female  intercourse,  and  those  who 


1  Eadmeri  Hist.  Novor.  Lib.  iv. 


CARDINAL   JOHN   OF   CREMA. 


293 


had  grown  tired  of  the  wives  from  whom  they  had  been 
separated  found  no  difficulty  in  forming  more  desirable 
unions  with  new  ones.  Eadmer  sorrowfully  adds  that  by 
this  time  there  were  few  indeed  who  continued  to  preserve 
the  purity  with  which  Anselm  had  labored  so  strenuously  to 
adorn  his  clergy.1 

At  length  the  condition  of  the  Anglican  church  attracted 
the  attention  of  the  pontiffs  who  had  bestowed  so  much 
fruitless  energy  on  the  morals  of  the  Continental  priesthood ; 
and  Honorius  II.  sent  Cardinal  John  of  Crema  to  England, 
for  the  purpose  of  restoring  its  discipline.  In  September, 
1126,  the  legate  held  a  council  in  London,  where  he  caused 
the  adoption  of  a  canon  menacing  with  degradation  all  those 
in  orders  who  did  not  abstain  from  the  society  of  their  wives, 
or  of  other  women  liable  to  suspicion  ;2  and  the  expressions 
employed  show  that  previous  legislation  had  not  accom- 
plished its  purpose.  That  the  cardinal's  endeavors  excited 
the  opposition  of  at  least  a  powerful  portion  of  the  clergy 
is  fairly  deducible  from  the  unlucky  adventure  which  put  a 
sudden  termination  to  his  mission.  After  fiercely  denouncing 
the  concubines  of  priests  and  expatiating  on  the  burning 
shame  that  the  body  of  Christ  should  be  made  by  one  who 
had  but  just  left  the  side  of  a  harlot,  he  was  that  very  night 
surprised  in  the  company  of  a  courtesan,  though  he  had  on  the 
same  day  celebrated  mass;  and  the  -suggestion  that  he  had 
been  entrapped  by  his  enemies,  while  it  did  not  palliate  his 
guilt,  may  be  assumed  to  indicate  the  power  and  determina- 
tion of  those  who  opposed  his  reforms.3 


1  Eadmeri  Hist.  Novor.  Lib.  iv. 

2  Presbyteris,  diaconibus,  subdia- 
conibus,  canonicis  uxorum,  concubi- 
narum  et  omnium  omnino  feminarum 
contubernia,  auctoritate  apostolica 
inbibemus,  prseter  matrem  aut  soro- 
rem  aut  amitam,  sive  illas  mulieres 
qui  omnino  careant  suspicione.  Qui 
decreti  hujus  violator  extiterit  confes- 
sus  vel  convictus,  ruinam  proprii 
ordinis  patiatur. — Concil.  Londinens. 
ann.  1126,  c.  13  (Wilkins,  I.  408). 

3  Henric.  Huntingd.  Lib.  vn. — 
Matt.  Paris  ann.  1125. — Baronius 
(aun.  1125,  No.  12)  endeavors  to  dis- 


prove the  story,  but  is  only  able  to 
offer  general  negative  allegations,  of 
but  little  weight  when  opposed  to  the 
testimony  of  a  contemporary  like 
Henry  of  Huntingdon,  who  speaks  of 
it  as  a  matter  of  public  notoriety, 
which  covered  the  cardinal  with  dis- 
grace and  drove  him  from  England. 

Such  conduct  was  a  favorite  theme 
of  objurgation  with  the  ascetics  of  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries — 

Certe  tu  qui  missam  dicis 
Post  araplexum  meretricis, 
Potaberis  ab  inimicis 
Liquore  sulphuris  et  picis. 

(Du  Meril,  Poesies  Latines,  p.  133.) 
So  also,  among  the   poems  which 


294 


NORMAN    ENGLAND 


The  energy  of  the  reformers  and  the  stubborn  obstinacy  of 
the  clergy  are  alike  manifested  by  the  council  of  Westmin- 
ster, held  the  following  year,  which  found  it  necessary  to 
repeat  the  prohibition  and  to  guard  it  with  stringent  provi- 
sions, based  upon  those  of  1108.1  This,  however,  proved  as 
ineffectual  as  its  predecessors,  and  another  effort  was  made 
the  next  year  under  auspices  which  promised  a  happier 
result.  King  Henry  seemed  suddenly  to  recover  the  holy 
zeal  which  had  lain  dormant  for  a  score  of  years,  and  in  the 
summer  of  1129  he  convened  a  great  assembly  of  all  the 
bishops,  archdeacons,  abbots,  priors,  and  canons  of  England, 
who  found  that  they  were  summoned  to  meet  for  the  purpose 
of  putting  an  end  to  the  immorality  of  the  clergy.  After 
long  discussion,  it  was  decreed  that  all  who  should  not  put 
away  their  wives  by  St.  Andrew's  day  (November  30th) 
should  be  deprived  of  their  functions,  their  churches,  and 
their  houses;  and  the  assembly  separated,  intrusting  to  the 
zealous  sovereign  the  execution  of  the  decree.  Perhaps 
Henry  remembered  how  St.  Anselm  had  interfered  in  1106 
to  protect  the  guilty  clergy  from  the  royal  extortioners ; 
perhaps  the  experience  of  his  long  reign  had  shown  him  the 
fruitlessness  of  endeavoring  to  impose  an  impossible  virtue 
on  carnal-minded  men.  His  exchequer,  as  usual,  was  in 
danger  of  collapse.  The  whole  transaction  may  have  been 
a  deeply-laid  scheme  to  extort  money,  or  the  sudden  prompt- 
ings of  temptation  may  have  been  too  powerful  for  his  self- 
denial — who  now  can  tell  ?  We  only  know  that  he  at  once 
put  into  action  an  extended  system  of  "  callagium,"  and 
having,  by  the  blind  simplicity  of  his  prelates,  the  temporali- 
ties of  nearly  all  the  minor  clergy  in  his  power,  he  proceeded 


pass  under  the  name  of  Golias  Epis- 
copus  is  one  of  fierce  invective  di- 
rected against  the  priests,  in  which 
this  is  one  of  the  principal  accusa- 
tions— 

0  sacerdos,  hsec  responde, 
Qui  frequenter  et  jocunde 
Cum  uxore  dormis,  unde 

Mane  surgens,  missam  dicis, 
Corpus  Christi  benedicis, 
Post  amplexus  meretricis 
Minus  quam  tu  peccatricis. 


Plenus  sorde,  plenus  mendis, 
Ad  autorem  manus  tendis, 
Quern  contempnis,  quern  offendis, 
Meretrici  durn  ascendis. 
***** 

Quali  corde,  quali  ore 
Corpus  Christi,  cum  cruore 
Tractas,  surgens  de  fcetore, 
Dignus  plagis  et  tortore. 

Mapes's  Poems  (Camd.  Soc.  Ed.  pp. 
49-50). 

1  Concil.  Westmonast.    ann.    1127? 
c.  5,  6,  7.  (Wilkius,  I.  410). 


DISORDERS   OF    THE   CHURCH 


295 


to  traffic  in  exemptions  shamelessly  and  on  the  largest  scale. 
As  a  financial  device,  the  plan  was  a  good  one ;  he  realized 
a  vast  sum  of  money,  and  his  afflicted  priests  were  at  least 
able  to  show  their  superiors  a  royal  license  to  marry  or  to 
keep  their  concubines  in  peace.1 


The  repetition  of  almost  identical  enactments,  year  after 
year,  with  corresponding  infinitesimal  results,  grows  weari- 
some and  monotonous.  If,  therefore,  I  refer  to  the  synod  of 
Westminster,  held  in  1138,  by  the  papal  legate  Alberic, 
Bishop  of  Ostia,  which  deprived  of  function  and  benefice  all 
married  and  concubinary  ecclesiastics,2  it  is  only  to  observe 
that  no  notice  was  taken  of  the  doctrine  of  the  invalidity  of 
sacerdotal  marriage,  which  at  that  period  Innocent  II.  was 
engaged  in  promulgating.  So,  if  I  allude  to  an  epistle  of 
Lucius  II.  in  1144,  reprehending  the  general  English  custom 
by  which  sons  succeeded  to  the  churches  of  their  fathers,  it 
is  merely  to  chronicle  the  commencement  of  the  direct  efforts 
of  the  popes,  fruitlessly  continued  during  the  remainder  of 
the  century,  to  abolish  that  wide-spread  and  seemingly  in- 
eradicable abuse.3  * 

What  was  the  condition  of  the  church  resulting  from  these 
prolonged  and  persistent  efforts  may  be  guessed  from  one  or 
two  examples.  When,  in  1139,  Nigel,  Bishop  of  Ely,  re- 
volted against  King  Stephen,  he  intrusted  the  defence  of  his 
castle  of  Devizes  to  his  concubine,  Maud  of  Kamsbury.  She 
bravely  fulfilled  her  charge  and  repulsed  the  assaults  of  the 
king,  until  he  bethought  him  of  a  way  to  compel  a  surrender. 
Obtaining  possession  of  Eoger,  son  of  Maud  and  Nigel,  the 
unhappy  youth  was  brought  before  the  walls,  and  prepara- 
tions were  made  to  hang  him  in  his  mother's  sight.  At  this 
her  courage  gave  way,  and  she  capitulated  at  once.4  Though 
the  monkish  chronicler  stigmatizes  Maud  as  "  pellex  epis- 
copi,"  she  may  probably  have  been  his  wife — in  either  case 


1  Henric.  Huntingd.  Lib.  vn.  — 
Anglo  Saxon  Chron.  ann.  1129. — 
Matt.  Paris  ann.  1129. 

2  Concil.  Westraonast.  ann.  1138, 
c.  8  (Wilkins,  I.  415). 


3  Rymer,  Foedera  Torn.  I.  ann.  1144. 
—  Post.  Concil.  Lateran,  P.  xix., 
passim. — Lib.  i.  Tit.  17  Extra. 

4  Orderic.  Vital.  P.  in.  Lib.  xiii. 
c.  20. 


296 


NORMAN   ENGLAND. 


the  publicity  of  the  connection  is  a  sufficient  commentary  on 
the  morals  and  manners  of  the  age. 

If  this  be  attributed  to  the  unbridled  turbulence  of  Ste- 
phen's reign,  we  may  turn  to  the  comparatively  calmer  times 
of  Henry  II.,  when  Alexander  III.,  amid  his  ceaseless  efforts 
to  restore  the  church  discipline  of  England,  in  1171,  ordered 
the  Bishops  of  Exeter  and  Worcester  and  the  Abbot  of 
Feversham  to  examine  and  report  as  to  the  evil  reputation 
of  Clarembald,  abbot-elect  of  St.  Augustine's  of  Canter- 
bury. In  the  execution  of  this  duty  they  found  that  that 
venerable  patriarch  had  seventeen  bastards  in  one  village; 
purity  he  ridiculed  as  an  impossibility,  while  even  licen- 
tiousness had  no  attraction  for  his  exhausted  senses  unless 
spiced  with  the  zest  of  publicity.1  That  a  man  whose  pro- 
fligacy was  so  openly  and  shamelessly  defiant  could  be 
elected  to  the  highest  place  in  the  oldest  and  most  honored 
religious  community  in  England  is  a  fact  which  lends  color 
to  the  assertion  of  a  writer  of  the  time  of  King  John,  that 
clergy  and  laity  were  indistinguishably  bad,2  and  perhaps 
justifies  the  anecdote  told  of  Hugh,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  who 
assumed  that  the  clergy  were  mudh  worse  than  the  laity.3 


The  efforts  of  Alexander  and  his  successors  were  seconded 
by  frequent  national  and  local  synods,  to  whose  special  in- 


1  Fluit  semine  et  liinnit  in  femi- 
nas,  adeo  impudens  ut  libidinern, 
nisi  quam  publicaverit,  voluptuosam 
esse  lion  reputet.  .  .  .  Fornicationis 
abusum  comparat  necessitati.  Prole- 
tarius  est  adeo  quod  paucis  annis  ei 
soboles  tanta  succrevit  ut  patriarch- 
arum  seriem  antecedat. — Joann.  Sa- 
resberiens.  Epist.  310.  Well  might 
Alexander,  in  ordering  his  ejection, 
say  "  ipsum  invenerint  tot  excessibus 
et  criminibus  publicis  irretitum,  quod 
pereorum  nobis  litteras  recitata  anri- 
bus  nostris  nimium  prsestiterunt  tsedi- 
um  et  dolorem."  —  Elmham,  Hist. 
Monast.  August,  p.  413. 

3  Crescit  malorum  cumulus, 
Est  sacerdo.s  ut  populus, 


Currunt  ad  illicitum, 
Uterque  juxta  libitum 

Audax  et  imperterritus. 
(Wright,  Polit.  Songs  of  England,  p.  9.) 

And  another  indignant  churchman 
exclaims: — 

Qui  sunt  qui  ecclesias  vendunt  et  mercantur? 
Qui  sunt  fornicarii  ?  Qui  sunt  qui  moechantur  ? 
Qui  uaturam  transvolant  et  abominantur  ? 
Qui  ?  clerici ;  a  nobis  non  longe  extra  petantur. 
Mapes's  Poems,  pp.  156-7. 

3  A  woman  applied  to  Bishop  Hugh 
for  advice  "super  impotentia  ma- 
riti,  quia  debitum  ei  reddere  non  po- 
terat,"  when  the  prelate  gravely  re- 
plied, "Faciamus  ergo  si  vis  eum 
sacerdotem,  et  statim  illo  in  opere, 
reddita  sibi  facilitate,  proculdubio 
potens  efficietur." — GKrald.  Cambrens. 
Gemm.  Eccles.  Div.  n.  c.  xviii. 


VENALITY   OF    THE   OFFICIALS.  297 

junctions  it  is  scarcely  worth  while  to  refer  in  full.  One 
noticeable  point  about  them,  however,  is  that  the  term 
"wife"  disappears,  and  is  replaced  by  "concubine"  or  "foca- 
ria" — the  latter  meaning  a  person  who  was  a  permanent  occu- 
pant of  the  priest's  hearth,  but  was  not  recognized  by  the 
authorities  as  a  lawful  wife.  Deans  and  archdeacons  were 
enjoined  to  hunt  up  these  illegal  companions,  but  from  the 
frequency  of  the  injunctions,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the 
search  was  not  often  successful,  and  that  the  officials  found 
the  duty  assigned  to  them  too  difficult  or  too  unprofitable  for 
execution.  That  it  was  not  impossible,  however,  when 
earnestly  undertaken,  is  shown  by  the  readiness  with  which 
King  John  unearthed  the  unfortunate  creatures  when,  in 
1208,  he  persecuted  the  clergy  in  his  blind  impotence  of 
wrath  at  the  interdict  set  upon  his  kingdom  by  Innocent  III. 
Discerning  in  these  quasi-conjugal  relations  the  tenderest 
spot  in  which  to  strike  those  who  had  rebelled  against  his 
authority  by  obeying  the  interdict,  and  at  the  same  time  as 
the  surest  and  readiest  means  of  extorting  money,  among  his 
other  schemes  of  spoliation  he  caused  all  these  women  to  be 
seized,  and  then  forced  the  unfortunate  churchmen  to  buy 
their  partners  back  at  exorbitant  prices.1 

The  ease,  indeed,  with  which  the  eyes  of  the  officials  were 
blinded  to  that  which  was  patent  to  the  public  was  the  sub- 
ject of  constantly  recurring  legislation,  the  reiteration  and 


1  Presbyterorum  et  clericorurn  foea- 
rise,  per  totam  Angliam  a  ministris 
regis  captse  sunt,  et  graviter  ad  se 
redimendum  compulse. — Matt.  Paris 
ann.  1208. 

Perhaps  it  is  to  John's  experience 


who  were  left  of  all  their  temporalities, 
and  leaving  them  only  moderate  sti- 
pends. Both  John  and  Otho  had 
been  under  excommunication,  and 
could  speak  feelingly  of  the  overween- 
ing power  and  abuses  of  the  church, 


in  this  matter  that  may  be  attributed  i  whose  members  they  characterize  as 
the  fact  that  when,  in  1214,  he  en-  I  "  genus  hoc  pigrum  et  fruges  con- 
tered  into  a  league  with  his  knight-  i  sumere  natum,  quod  otia  ducit,  quod- 
errant  nephew,  the  Emperor  Otho  IV.,  '  que  sub  tecto  marcet  et  umbra,  qui 
against  Philip  Augustus,  they  also  '  frustra  vivunt,  quorum  omnis  labor 
declared  war  against  Innocent  III.,  j  in  hoc  est,  ut  Baccho  Venerique  va- 
and  proposed  to  carry  out  a  gigantic  i  cent,  quibus  crapula  obesis  poris  colla 
scheme    of    spoliation    by  enriching,  j  inflat,  ventresque  abdomine  onerat." 


from  ecclesiastical  property,  all  who 
might  rally  to  their  standard.  They 
proclaimed  their  intention  of  hum- 
bling the  church,  reducing  the  num- 
bers  of   the  clergy,   stripping   those 


(Liinig.  Cod.  Diplom.  Italise  I.  34). 
A  few  weeks  later  the  Bridge  of  Bou- 
vines  put  a  sudden  end  to  this  pros- 
perous plan  of  reformation. 


298  NORMAN    ENGLAND. 

increasing  violence  of  which  bears  irrefragable  testimony  at 
once  to  its  necessity  and  its  impotence.  Not  only  in  grave 
synods  and  pastorals  was  the  abuse  reprehended  and  deplored, 
but  it  offered  too  favorable  a  subject  for  popular  animadver- 
sion to  escape  the  shafts  of  satire.  In  the  preceding  century, 
Thomas  &  Becket,  in  a  vehement  attack  upon  simony,  includes 
this  among  the  many  manifestations  of  that  multiform  sin — 

Symon  auffert,  Symon  donat  ; 
Hune  expellit,  huno  coronat ; 
Hunc  circumdat  gravi  peste, 
Ilium  nuptiali  veste.1 

There  were  few  more  popular  poems  in  the  Middle  Ages 
than  the  "  Apocalypsis  Goliae,"  the  more  than  doubtful  author- 
ship of  which,  at  the  close  of  the  twelfth  or  beginning  of  the 
thirteenth  century,  is  claimed  for  Walter  Mapes  in  Eng- 
land and  Gautier  de  Chatillon  in  France ;  and  the  enduring 
reputation  of  which  is  attested  by  an  English  version  as  late 
as  the  sixteenth  century.  The  author,  whoever  he  be,  in- 
veighing against  the  evil  courses  of  the  archdeacons,  assumes 
that  the  extortion  of  the  "  cullagium"  was  almost  universal. 

Seductara  nuntii  fraude  prseambuli 

Capit  focariam,  ut  per  cubiculi 

Fort  an  am  habeat  fortunam  loculi, 

Et  per  vehiculum  omen  vehiculi. 
Decano  praecipit  quod  si  presbiteri 
*  Per  genitivos  scit  dativos  fieri, 

Accusans  faciat  vocatum  conteri, 

Ablatis  fratribus  a  porta  infer!.* 

Towards  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century,  Peter  de 
Vinea  also  has  his  fling  at  the  same  corruption,  and  though 
the  part  he  took  in  the  fierce  quarrels  between  his  master 
Frederic  II.  and  the  papacy  renders  him  perhaps  a  prejudiced 
witness,  still  his  ample  experience  of  the  disorders  of  the 
church  makes  him  an  experienced  one. 

Non  utuntur  clerici  nostri  vestimentis  : 
Sed  tenent  focarias,  quod  clamor  est  gentis — 
—  Deliinc  reum  convocant,  et,  turba  rejecta, 
Dicunt :  Ista  crimiua  tibi  sunt  objecta  ; 


1  Du  Meril,  Poesies  Pop.  Latines,  p.  179. 

2  Mapes's  Poems,  p.  10. 


PERSISTENCE   IN    MARRIAGE.  299 

Pone  libras  quindecim  in  nostra  collecta, 

Et  tua  flagitia  non  erunt  detecta. 

Reus  dat  denarios,  Fratres  scriptum  radunt ; 

Sic  infames  plurimi  per  nummos  evadunt : 

Qui  totam  pecuniarh  quam  petunt  non  tradunt, 

Simul  in  infamiam  et  in  pcenam  cadunt.' 

The  example  which  King  John  had  set,  however  instruct- 
ive, was  not  appreciated  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  and 
the  "  focarias"  were  allowed  to  remain  virtually  undisturbed, 
at  least  to  such  an  extent  as  to  render  them  almost  universal. 
Although  by  rigid  churchmen  they  were  regarded  as  mere 
concubines,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  tie  between 
them  and  the  priests  was  of  a  binding  nature,  which  appears 
to  have  wanted  none  of  the  rites  essential  to  its  entire  re- 
spectability. Giraldus  Cambrensis,  who  died  at  an  advanced 
age  about  the  year  1220,  speaks  of  these  companions  being 
publicly  maintained  by  nearly  all  the  parish  priests  in  Eng- 
land and  Wales.  They  arranged  to  have  their  benefices 
transmitted  to  their  sons,  while  their  daughters  were  married 
to  the  sons  of  other  priests,  thus  establishing  an  hereditary 
sacerdotal  caste  in  which  marriage  appears  to  have  been  a 
matter  of  course.2  The  propriety  of  the  connection,  and  the 
hereditary  ecclesiastical  functions  of  the  offspring  are  quaintly 


1  Du  Meril,  op.  cit.  p.  171.                   |  patres    eorum    ipsos    ibi     genuerunt 
„  „,...                                             ,   ,         !  et  promoverunt,  sic  et  ipsi  more  con- 

2  Films  autem  more  sacerdotum  sil£li  prolem  ibidem  suscitant,  tarn 
parochia  mm  Angh*  fere  cunctorum,  ^  ^  M  benenciis  succeda- 
damnabih  quidem  etdetestabili,  pub-  neam>  Rlii8\amqTie  suis  statim  cum 
licam  secum  habebat  comitem  indi-  fuerint  et  ^  bertatig  an_ 
viduam.et  infoco  focanam  et  in  oubi-  nog  exce3Serint  COncanoniconim  suo- 
culoconcubinam.-Girald •  Cambrens.  ^  fi  ^  gic  ^.^  foedere  gan_ 
Specu  .  Eccles.  Dist.  in.  c  8.  (Girald ^  inis  scilicet  et  affinitati3  jure  jun- 
Opp.  III.  129.)  However  Giraldus  and  |ant  •  maritalUopuIadariPro- 
the  severer  churchmen  might  stigma-  J^  ;  Postmodum  autem  .  .  . 
tize  these  companions  as  concubines,  canonicas  suas  filiis  8uis  conferri 
they  were  evidently  united  in  the  cesgionem  nQn  inefficaciter  elabo_ 
bondsofmatnmony  Hesays himself,  „  (D  Jme  et  gtatu  Meney> 
respecting  Wales,  Nosse  te  novi  .  .  E(jcleg>  ^  .  That  ^  condition 
canonicos  Menevenses  fere  canctos,  lf  affairg  was\ot  confined  to  the 
maXimevero\\alensicos,publicosfor-  canong  of  cathedral  churcheS  is  evi. 
nicanos  et  concubinarios  esse,  sub  alia  dent  frQm  hig  ftl  remarkg  in  the 
ecclesi*  cathedralis  et  tanquam  in  Gemm.  Ecclesf  Dist.  n.  cap.  xxiii. 
jpsoejusdemgremiofocarias  suas  cum  Hig  treatige  De  gtata  Meneven8> 
obstetricibus  et  nutncibus  atque  cu-  M  wag  wrUten  after  nu  and 
nabulis  in  laribus  et  penetrahbus  therefore  subsequent  to  the  death  of 
exhibentes.  .  .  Adeo  quidem  ut  sicut  jnnocent  m# 


300  NORMAN   ENGLAND. 

alluded  to  in  a  poem  of  the  period,  wherein  a  logician  takes 
a  priest  to  task  for  entertaining  such  a  partner — ■ 

L. — Et  prse  tot  innumeris  quae  frequentas  malis, 
Est  tibi  presbytera  plus  exitialis. 

P. — Malo  cum  presbytera  pulcbra  fornicari, 
Servituros  domino  filios  lucrari, 
Quam  vagas  satellites  per  antra  sectari : 
Est  inhonestissimum  sic  dehonestari.  ■ 

Even  the  holy  virgins,  spouses  of  Christ,  seem  to  have  claimed 
and  enjoyed  the  largest  liberty.  To  this  period  is  attributed 
a  homily  addressed  to  nuns,  which  earnestly  dissuades  them 
from  leaving  their  blessed  state  and  subjecting  themselves  to 
the  cares  and  toils  inseparable  from  matrimony.  The  writer 
appeals  to  no  rules  of  ecclesiastical  law  that  could  be  enforced 
to  prevent  them  from  following  their  choice,  but  labors  drea- 
rily to  prove  that  they  would  not  better  their  condition,  either 
in  this  world  or  the  next,  by  forsaking  their  heavenly  bride- 
groom for  an  earthly  one. — "And  of  godes  brude.  and  his 
freo  dohter.  for  ba  to  gederes  ha  is ;  bicumeth  theow  under 
mon  and  his  threl  to  don  al  and  drehen  that  him  liketh."2 

Innocent  III.  had  not  overlooked  such  a  state  of  discipline, 
especially  when  the  transactions  between  himself  and  John 
had  rendered  him  the  suzerain  of  England,  and  doubly  re- 
sponsible for  the  morals  of  the  Anglican  church.  His  zealous 
efforts  to  effect  an  impossible  reform  are  chronicled  by  a 
rhymer  of  the  period,  who  enters  fully  into  the  dismay  of  the 
good  pastors  at  the  prospect  of  the  innovation,  and  who 
argues  their  cause  with  all  the  sturdy  common  sense  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  mind. 

Prisciani  regula  penitus  cassatur, 

Sacerdos  per  hie  et  hsec  olim  declinabatur ; 
Sed  per  liic  solummodo  nunc  articulatur, 
Cum  per  nostrum  prsesulem  hsec  amoveatur. 
*  #  .  *  #  ■*  # 

Quid  agant  presbyteri  propriis  carentes  ? 
Alienas  violant  clanculo  molentes, 


1  De  presbytero  et  logico.     Mapes's        2  Hali    Meidenbad,   p.     7.     (Early 
Poems,  p.  256.  \  English  Text  Society,  1866.) 


FRUITLESS    LEGISLATION.  301 

Nnllis  pro  conjugiis  foeminis  parcentes, 

Pocnam  vel  infamiam  nihil  metuentes. 

*  #  *  *  * 

Non  est  Innocentius,  imrno  nocens  vere, 
Qui  quod  Deus  docuit  studet  abolere  ; 
Jussit  enim  Dominus  foeminas  habere, 
Sed  hoc  noster  pontifex  jussit  prohibere. 

Gignere  nos  prsecipit  vetus  testamentum  ; 
Ubi  novum  prohibet  nusquam  est  inventuni. 
A  moderiiis  latum  est  istud  documentum, 
Ad  quod  nullum  ratio  prsebet  argumentum.1 

Nor  were  tlie  Anglican  bishops  remiss  in  seconding  the 
efforts  of  the  pope  to  break  down  the  opposition  which  thus 
openly  defied  their  power  and  ventured  even  to  justify  the 
heresy  of  sacerdotal  marriage.  Councils,  were  held  which 
passed  canons  more  stringent  than  ever ;  bishops  issued  con- 
stitutions and  pastorals  denouncing  the  custom  ;  inquests  were 
organized  to  traverse  the  dioceses  and  investigate  the  house- 
hold of  every  priest.  The  women  were  especially  attacked. 
Christian  sepulture  was  denied  them ;  property  left  to  them 
and  their  children  by  their  partners  in  guilt  was  confiscated 
to  the  bishops ;  churching  after  childbirth  was  interdicted  to 
them ;  and,  if  still  contumacious  after  a  due  series  of  warn- 
ings, they  were  to  be  handed  over  to  the  secular  arm  for 
condign  punishment.2  How  much  all  this  bustling  legislation 
effected  is  best  shown  by  the  declaration  of  the  legate,  Cardi- 
nal Otto,  in  1237,  at  the  great  council  of  London.  He  de- 
plores the  fact  that  married  men  received  orders  and  held 
benefices  while  still  retaining  their  wives,  and  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  acknowledge  their  children  as  legitimate  by  public 
deeds  and  witnesses.  After  descanting  upon  the  evils  of  this 
neglect  of  discipline,  he  orders  that  all  married  clerks  shall 


'  Mapes's  Poems,  pp.  171-2.     This  2  Concil.    Eboracens.  ami.   1195,  c. 

well-known  poem  has  been  attributed  17. — Concil.  Londinens.  aim.  1200,  c. 

to  the  Venerable  Hildebert,  Bishop  of  10. — Concil.  Dunelmens.  aim.  1220. — 

Le  Mans,  as  written  on  the  occasion  of  Concil.  Oxoniens.  ann.  1222,  c.  28. — 

the  reformation  of  the  French  clergy  Constit.  Archiep.  Cantuar.  ann.  1225 

by  Calixtus  II.  (Croke,  Rhyming  La-  (Matt.    Paris    ann.  1225).  —  Constit. 

tin  Verse,  p.  85),  but  the  character  of  Episc.  Lincoln,  ann.  1230  (Wilkins,  I. 

that  reverend  prelate  forbids  such  an  627). — Constit.  Provin.  Cantuar.  ann. 

assumption,  even  if  the  allusion  to  1236,  c.  3,4,30. — Constft.  Coventriens. 

Innocent  did  not  assign  to  it  a  later  ann.  1237  (Wilkins,  I.  641),  &c. 
period.                                                         , 


302  NORMAN    ENGLAND. 

be  deprived  of  preferment  and  benefice,  that  their  property 
shall  not  descend  to  wife  or  children,  but  to  their  churches, 
and  that  their  sons  shall  be  incapable  of  holy  orders  unless 
specially  dispensed  for  eminent  merit;  then  turning  upon 
concubinary  priests,  he  inveighs  strongly  against  their  licen- 
tiousness, and  decrees  that  all  guilty  of  the  sin  shall  within 
thirty  days  dismiss  their  women  forever,  under  pain  of  sus- 
pension from  function  and  benefice  until  full  satisfaction, 
persistent  contumacy  being  visited  with  deprivation.  The 
archbishops  and  bishops  are  commanded  to  make  thorough 
inquisition  throughout  all  the  deaneries,  to  bring  offenders  to 
light,  and  also  to  put  an  end  to  the  iniquitous  practice  of 
ordaining  the  offspring  of  such  connections  as  successors  in 
their  fathers'  benefices.1 

This  legislation  produced  much  excitement,  and  the  legate 
even  had  fears  for  his  life.  Some  prelates,  indeed,  maintained 
that  it  only  was  binding  on  the  church  of  England  during  the 
residence  of  Otto,  but  they  were  overruled,  and  it  remained 
at  least  nominally  in  force  and  was  frequently  referred  to  sub- 
sequently as  the  recognized  law  in  such  matters.  Its  effect 
was  considerable,  and  some  of  the  bishops  endeavored  to  carry 
out  its  provisions  with  energy,  as  may  be  presumed  from  a 
constitution  of  William  of  Cantilupe,  Bishop  of  Worcester, 
issued  in  1240,  ordering  his  officials  to  investigate  diligently 
whether  any  of  the  clergy  of  the  diocese  had  concubines  or 
were  married.2 

To  this  period  and  to  the  disturbance  caused  by  these  pro- 
ceedings are  doubtless  to  be  attributed  several  satirical  pieces 
of  verse  describing  the  excitement  occurring  among  the  un- 
fortunate clerks  thus  attacked  in  their  tenderest  spot.  The 
opening  lines  of  one  of  these  poems  indicate  the  novelty  and 
unexpectedness  of  the  new  regulations: — 


1  Matt.  Paris  arm.  1237. — Innotuit  j  contra  statuta  sacrorum  canonum  non 
nobis,  referentibus  plurimis  fide  dig-  formidant.  Deinde,  processu  temporis, 
nis,quod  multi  proprise  salutis  imme-  !  proli  susceptte  de  tali  copula  expedire 
mores,  matrimonii^  contractis  clan-  videtur,  ipsis  viventibus  vel  defunctis, 
destine,  retinere  cum  uxoribus  eccle- !  per  testes  vel  instrumenta  probare 
sias,et  ecclesiastica  beneficia  adipisci,  !  contracta  fuisse  matrimonia  inter  eos. 
de  novo  prompveri  ad  sacros  ordines,  I      2  Wmu-        t    «7o_3 


EXCITEMENT   AMONG    THE   CLERGY.  303 

Rumor  novus  Angliae  partes  pergiravit, 
Clerieos,  presbyteros  omnes  excitavit, 
*  *  *  *  *  * 

Nascitur  presbyteris  hinc  fera  procella  : 
Quisquis  timet  graviter  pro  sua  puella. 

The  author  then  describes  a  great  council,  attended  by  more 
than  ten  thousand  ecclesiastics,  assembled  to  deliberate  on  the 
course  to  be  pursued  in  so  delicate  a  conjuncture.  An  old 
priest  commences — 

Pro  nostris  uxoribus  sumus  congregati : 
Videatis  provide  quod  sitis  parati, 
Ad  mandatum  domini  papse  vel  legati, 
Respondere  graviter  ne  sitis  dampnati.1 

Another  poem  of  similar  character  describes  a  chapter  held 
by  all  orders  and  grades  to  consider  the  same  question.  The 
various  speakers  declare  their  inability  to  obey  the  new  rule, 
except  two,  whose  age  renders  them  indifferent.  A  learned 
doctor  exclaims — 

Omnis  debet  clericus  habere  concubinam  ; 
Hoc  dixit  qui  coronam  gerit  auro  trinam  : 
Hanc  igitur  retinere  decet  disciplinam. 

The  general  belief  in  the  legality  of  the  connection  is  shown 
by  the  remark  of  another — 

Surgens  unus  presbyter  turba  de  totali  .  .  . 
"  Unam"  dixit  "  teueo  amore  legali, 
Quam  nolo  dimittere  pro  lege  tali." 

Another  expects  to  escape  by  paying  his  "cullagium"— 

Duodeciinus  clamat  magno  cum  clamore  : 
"  Non  me  pontifex  terret  minis  et  pavore  : 
Sed  ego  nummos  praebeam  pro  Dei  amore, 
Ut  in  pace  maneam  cara  cum  uxore." 

Another  urges  the  indiscriminate  immorality  attending  upon 
the  attempt  to  enforce  an  impossible  asceticism — 

Addidit  ulterius  :  "Sitis  memor  horum, 
Si  vetare  praesul  vult  specialem  torum, 
Cernet  totum  brevi  plenum  esse  chorum 
Ordine  sacrorum  adulterorum." 


De  Convocatione  Sacerdotum  (Mapes's  Poems,  pp.  180-2). 


304  NORMAN    ENGLAND. 

And  at  length  the  discussion  closes  with  the  speech  of  a  Do- 
minican, who  ends  his  remarks  by  predicting — 

Habebimus  clerici  duas  concubinas : 
Monachi,  canonici  totidem  vel  trinas  : 
Decani,  praelati,  quatuor  vel  quinas  : 
Sic  tandem  leges  implebimus  divinas.1 

Notwithstanding  these  flights  of  the  imagination,  no  or- 
ganized resistance  was  offered  to  the  reform.  The  clergy 
sullenly  acquiesced,  and  submitted  to  a  pressure  which  was 
becoming  irresistible.  The  triumph  of  the  sacerdotal  party, 
however,  was  gradual,  and  no  exact  limit  can  be  assigned  to 
the  recognition  of  the  principle  of  celibacy.  In  1250  the 
idea  of  married  priests  was  still  sufficiently  prevalent  to  lead 
the  populace  of  London  to  include  matrimony  among  the 
accusations  brought  against  Boniface,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, when  his  tyranny  had  aroused  general  resistance  ;2  and 
in  1255  "Walter  Kirkham,  Bishop  of  Durham,  still  felt  it 
necessary  to  prohibit  the  marriage  of  his  clergy  under  pain 
of  suspension  and  deprivation.3     It  is  perhaps  noteworthy, 


1  Mapes's  Poems, pp.  176-9. — All  the!      This  Boniface  was  brother  of  the 

poetasters  of  the  period,  however,  were   Duke  of  Savoy,  and  was  one  of  the 

not  enlisted  on  one  side.    There  is  ex-  j  Italian  prelates  whose  intrusion  into 

tant  an  exhortation  against  marriage, :  the    choice    places    of   the   Anglican 

addressed  to  the  clergy,  which  consists    church  was  a  source  of  intense  irrita- 

of  a  violent  invective  against  the  sex,   tion.     The  career  of  another  brother, 

recapitulating  the  customary  accusa- J  Philip,  is  an  instructive  illustration 

tions  against  women  with  all  the  brutal   of  the  ecclesiastical  manners  of  the 

coarseness  of  the  age  : —  j  age.     He  was  in  deacon's  orders,  and 

Hc-cc  est  iniquitas  omnis  adulters  j  yet,  as  a  leader  of  condottieri,  he  was 

Qui  virum  proprium  vellet  non  vivere,       i  a  strenuous  supporter  of  Innocent  IV. 

Ut  det  adultero  non  cessat  rapere—  •      ■■•      „„„-_„i  „uk    uroj„„:„    tt        h^ 

Desistat  igitur  clems  nunc  nubere.  !  m  hlS   quarrel  With   JiederiC   II.      He 

Du  Meril,  op.  cit.  p.  184.    was    created    Archbishop    of    Lyons, 

The  "  Cnnfessio  Golise"  feelinzlv  be     BishoP  of  Valence,  Provost  of  Bruges, 

•i     *i.?-*     ?*i        a     •         i        and  Dean  of  Vienne,  and,  after  enjoy- 

wails  the  difficulty  of  rendering  obe-    .       ,,  .       n  '■,.      ...      / 

,.  "  ..  W  5  ids  these  miscellaneous  dignities  for 

dience  to  the  new  regulations : —  -        ,  ■,       °  .    ,       ,-, 

uicuuc  ^»    e5i.        v  some  twenty  years,  when  at  length 


Clement  IV.  insisted  on  his  ordination 


Kes  est  arduissima  vincere  naturam 
In  aspectu  virginura  mentem  ferre  puram  ;  . 
Juvenes  non  possumus  legem  sequi  duram,  ,  and  consecration,  he  threw  oil  his  epiS- 
Leviumque  corporum  nou  habere  curam.       j  copal  robe,  married  first  the  heiress  of 

Quis  in  igne  positus  igne  non  uratur  ?  j  p  i      PnmtP    and    thpn    a    nippenf 

Quis  in  mundo  demorans  castas  habeatur?    |  jrancne-uomte  ana  tnen  a  niece  or 

Ubi  Venus  digito  juvenes  venatur  ;  Innocent  IV.— dying  at  last  as  Duke 

Oculis  illaqueat,  lacie  prsedatur?  j  0f  Savoy.    (Milman,  Latin  Christ.  IV. 

Mapes's  Poems,  p.  72.    326  ^ 

2  Quem  non  Deus,  non  legitima  vel  j  3  Nullusque  eorum  uxorem  ducat : 
libera  promovit  electio,  sed  rex  illicite  et  si  antequam  sacros  ordines  suscepit 
potius  intrusit,  illiteratum  et  uxora-  uxorem  duxerit,  seu  postea,  si  bene- 
tum.— Matt.  Paris  ann.  1250.  1  ficium   habeat,   ipso  privetur,  et   ab 


MARRIAGE    BECOMES    OBSOLETE.  305 

however,  that,  not  long  after  this,  Horne,  in  his  Myrror  of 
Justice,  when  treating  of  exceptions  to  the  benefit  of  clergy, 
specifies  second  marriages,  but  not  single  marriages,  as  de- 
priving clerks  of  the  privilege  of  ecclesiastical  trial.1 

By  this  time,  however,  priestly  marriage  may  be  considered 
to  have  become  nearly  obsolete  in  England.  When,  in  1268, 
the  Cardinal-legate  Ottoboni  held  a  great  national  council  in 
London,  and  renewed  the  constitutions  of  his  predecessor 
Otto,  he  made  no  allusion  to  marriage,  and  only  denounced 
the  practice  of  concubinage,  which  he  endeavored  to  eradicate 
by  commanding  all  archdeacons  to  make  a  thorough  in- 
quisition annually  into  the  morals  of  the  clergy  under  their 
jurisdiction.2  These  constitutions  of  Otto  and  Ottoboni  long- 
remained  the  law  of  the  English  church,  and  we  find  them 
constantly  referred  to  in  the  canons  of  councils  and  pastorals 
of  bishops,  ceaselessly  laboring  to  effect  the  impossible  en- 
forcement of  discipline.3  How  hard  was  the  task  may  be 
readily  conceived  when  we  see,  in  1279,  the  primate  Peckham, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  applying  to  Rome  for  assistance 
in  prosecuting  a  certain  bishop  against  whom  he  had  long 
been  vainly  endeavoring  to  bring  the  law  to  bear.  A  con- 
cubine had  confessed  to  having  borne  five  children  to  the 
offender;4  he  had  himself  admitted  his  guilt  in  a  private 
interview  with  Peckham,  for  which  he  had  afterwards  claimed 
the  seal  of  the  confessional ;  yet  the  archbishop  complains 
that  his  efforts  will  be  unsuccessful  unless  he  is  fortified  with 


exsecutione   sui   officii    suependatur,  I  Cantuar.  ann.  1399,  c.  13  (Wilkins, 
nisiincasua  jure  concesso. — Constit.  j  III.  240). 

Walteri  Episc.  Dunelmens.  (Wilkins, !       ,  „,  .  .   .   .      ,    .. 

I   705")  canon    law   maintained    the 

i  extraordinary  doctrine  that  the  con- 

1  Sir,  il  ne  doit  mie  joyer  du  benefit  i  fession  of  the  guilty  woman  could  not 

decelle  priviledge,  car  il  ad  forfait  per  j  be  received  as  evidence  against  her 

vice  de  Bigamy  ;  corarae  celui  qui  ad  j  accomplice,  though   it    was    good    as 


espouse  vefve  ou  plusors  femmes.- 
Myrror  of  Justice,  cap.  in.  sect.  v. 

2  Concil.  Londinens.  ann.  1168,  c.  8 
(Wilkins,  II.  5). 

3  As  late  as  1399  the  Archbishop  of 
Tanterbury  ordered  his  suffragans  to 
have  these  constitutions  read  and  ex- 
plained in  the  vulgar  tongue  in  all 
their   episcopal    synods.  —  Convocat. 

20 


against  herself.  "  Unde  nee  sacerdotes 
accusare  nee  in  eos  testificari  valent. 
.  .  .  Quia  ergo  ista  de  se  confitetur, 
super  alienum  crimen  ei  credi  non 
oportet;  sed  contra  earn  sua  confessio 
interpretanda  est."  (Gratian.  P.  n. 
c.  xv.  q.  3.)  It  would  be  hard  to 
imagine  a  rule  of  practice  better  fitted 
to  repress  investigation  and  to  shield 
offenders. 


306  NORMAN    ENGLAND. 

letters  from  the  pope  himself.  His  strict  injunctions  of  secrecy 
on  his  correspondent,  and  his  evident  dread  lest  the  criminal's 
agents  in  Eome  should  get  wind  of  the  application,  show  how 
difficult  was  the  enterprise,  and  how.  rarely  prelates  could  be 
expected  to  undertake  duties  so  arduous  and  so  unpromising.1 
Perhaps  the  man  to  whom  the  church  owed  most  for  his 
energy  and  activity  in  promoting  the  cause  of  reform  was  the 
celebrated  Eobert  Grosseteste,  Bishop  of  Lincoln.  The  lead- 
ing part  which  he  took  in  the  political  troubles  of  the  stormy 
reign  of  Henry  III.  has  thrown  his  ecclesiastical  character 
somewhat  into  the  shade,  and  he  is  better  known  as  the  friend 
of  Leicester  than  as  the  untiring  churchman.  Notwithstand- 
ing his  consistent  opposition  to  Henry  III.  and  to  the  encroach- 
ments of  the  papacy,  he  was  the  inflexible  enemy  of  clerical 
irregularities,  and  he  enforced  the  decretals  throughout  his 
diocese  with  as  firm  a  hand  as  that  which  he  raised  in  defence 
of  the  rights  of  the  nation  and  the  privileges  of  the  Anglican 
church.  Thus,  in  1251,  he  made  a  rigorous  inquisition  in  his 
bishopric,  forcing  all  his  beneficed  clergy  to  the  observance 
of  the  strictest  chastity,  removing  from  their  houses  all  sus- 
picious women,  and  punishing  transgressors  with  deprivation. 
It  is  not  easy  to  approve  of  his  brutal  expedient  for  testing 
the  virtue  of  the  inmates  of  his  nunneries,2  the  adoption  of 
which  could  only  be  justified  and  suggested  by  the  convic- 
tion that  general  licentiousness  was  everywhere  prevalent ; 
and  though  such  treatment  of  the  spouses  of  Christ  was  to 
the  last  degree  degrading,  yet  it  was  doubtless  more  efficacious 
than  the  ordeal  of  the  Eucharist,  which  was  frequently  re- 
sorted to  in  special  cases.  Not  only,  however,  did  he  thus 
endeavor  to  reform  the  morals  of  his  flock,  but  he  made  the 
closest  scrutiny  into  the  character  of  applicants  for  ordina- 
tion. In  this  he  was  largely  aided  by  his  ascetic  friend  and 
admirer,  Adam  de  Marisco,  and  the  correspondence  between 
them  shows  not  only  the  importance  which  they  reasonably 
attached  to  the  subject,  but  the  sleepless  vigilance  required 
to  counteract  the  prevalent  immorality  of  the  clergy,  and  the 


>  Wilkins,  II.  40. 

2  Ad   domos   religiosarum  veniens, 
fecit  expriini  inammillas  earundern,  ut 


sic  physice  si  esset  inter  eas  corrup- 
tela,  experiretur. —  Matt.  Paris  anu. 
1251. 


SACERDOTAL    CELIBACY    ESTABLISHED 


30' 


incredible  laxity  with  which  the  patrons  of  livings  bestowed 
the  benefices  in  their  gift.1 

The  rule  was  now  fairly  established  and  generally  acknow- 
ledged ;  concubinage,  though  still  prevalent — nay,  in  fact 
almost  universal — was  not  defended  as  a  right,  but  was  prac- 
tised with  what  concealment  was  possible,  and  was  the  object 
of  unremitting  assault  from  councils  and  prelates.  To  enter 
into  the  details  of  the  innumerable  canons  and  constitutions 
directed  against  the  ineradicable  vice  during  the  succeeding 
half  century  would  be  unprofitable.  Their  endless  iteration 
is  only  interesting  as  proving  their  inefhcacy.  A  popular 
satirist  of  the  reign  of  Edward  II.  declares  that  bribery  of  the 
ecclesiastical  officials  insured  the  domestic  comfort  of  the 
clergy  and  their  female  companions  ;2  while  in  time  the  canon 
law  seems  to  have  lost  all  its  terrors.  One  of  the  earliest  acts 
of  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.  was  a  law  empowering  the  officials 
to  imprison  "  religious  men"  convicted  of  incontinence.3  That 
the  aid  of  the  secular  legislator  should  thus  have  been  in- 
voked was  the  abject  confession  that  the  ceaseless  labor  of 
four  centuries  had  utterly  failed. 

In  one  part  of  England,  however,  the  reform  seems  to  have 
penetrated  even  more  slowly.  We  have,  seen  above,  on  the 
testimony  of  Giraldus  Cambrensis,  that  in  the  early  part  of  the 
thirteenth  century  the  marriage  of  priests  and  the  hereditary 
transmission  of  benefices  were  almost  universal  in  Wales.  As 
in  the  wild  fastnesses  of  the  Principality  the  ecclesiastical 


1  Adse  de  Marisco  Epist.  passim 
(Monumenta  Franciscana).  How  little 
the  character  of  the  clergy  had  im- 
proved under  the  ceaseless  efforts  of 
the  preceding  half  century  may  be 
guessed  from  Adam's  description  of 
his  contemporary  brethren — "  Nihil 
aliud  pervicacissima  caninae  voraci- 
tatis  impudentia  consectantur,  quam 
caducam  fastuum  arrogantiam,  quam 
mobilem  qusestuum  affluentiam,  quam 
sordidam  luxuum  petulentiam,  auc- 
toritatem  summse  salvationis  in  per- 
ditionis  seternse  crudelitatem  depra- 
vantes  ;  cernimus  usquequaquam 
quasi     solutum    Satanam     effrsenata 


tyraimide  beatam  hsereditatem  bene- 
dicti  Dei  immanissime  depopulari." 
— Ibid.  Epist.  ccxlvii.  P.  i.  c.  18. 

a  And  thise  ersedeknes  that  ben  set  to  visite 

holi  churche, 
Everich    fondeth  hu   he   may  shrewede- 

lichest  worche ; 
He  wole   take  mede  of  that  on  and  that 

other, 
And  late  the  parsoun  have  a  wyf  and  the 

prest  another, 

At  wille ; 
Coveytise  shal  stoppen  here  month,  and 

maken  hem  al  stille. 

Wright,  Political  Songs  of  England, 
p.  326. 

3  1  Henry  VII.  cap.  4  (Froude,  Hist. 
England,  I.  85). 


308 


NORMAN    ENGLAND. 


regulations  seemed  powerless,  recourse  was  had  to  the  secular 
law,  which  was  employed  to  inflict  various  disabilities  on 
offenders  and  their  offspring,  and  the  repetition  of  these  shows 
how  obstinately  the  custom  was  adhered  to  by  the  clergy 
until  a  comparatively  late  period.  Thus,  in  the  Gwentian 
and  Dimetian  Codes  there  is  a  provision  that  the  son  of  a 
married  priest,  born  after  the  ordination  of  his  father,  shall 
not  share  in  the  paternal  estate  ;'  and  this  provision  is  retained 
and  repeated  in  a  collection  of  laws  which  contains  the  date 
of  2  Henry  IV.,  showing  it  to  be  posterior  to  the  year  1400. 2 
The  same  collection  enumerates  married  priests  among 
"  thirteen  things  corrupting  the  world,  and  which  will  ever 
remain  in  it;  and  it  can  never  be  delivered  of  them."3  In 
the  same  spirit,  the  Book  of  Cynog,  which  is  of  uncertain 
date,  declares  "  nor  is  a  married  priest,  as  he  has  relin- 
quished his  law,  to  be  credited  in  law,"  and  it  therefore 
directs  that  the  testimony  of  such  witnesses  shall  not  be  re- 
ceivable in  court;4  while  another  collection  of  laws,  occurring 
in  a  MS.  of  the  fifteenth  century,  repeats  the  provision — 
"their  testimony  is  not  to  be  credited  in  any  place,  and  they 
are  excluded  from  the  law,  unless  they  ask  a  pardon  from  the 
pope  or  a  bishop,  through  a  public  penance."5  In  fact,  we 
may,  perhaps,  almost  hazard  the  conclusion  that,  notwith- 
standing the  efforts  of  both  ecclesiastical  and  secular  legis- 
lators, sacerdotal  marriage  scarcely  became  obsolete  in  Wales 
before  it  was  once  more  recognized  as  legitimate  under  the 
Reformation. 


1  Gwentian  Code,  Book  n.  chap. 
xxx.  "  Because  he  was  begotten  con- 
trary to  decree." — Dimetian  Code, 
Book  ii.  chap.  viii.  §  27  (Aneurin 
Owen's  Ancient  Laws  and  Institutes 
of  Wales,  Vol.  I.  pp.  761,  445).  Of 
the  latter  of  these  codes,  the  recension 
which  has  reached  us  contains  altera- 
tions made  by  Rys  son  of  Grufudd, 
showing  it  to  be  posterior  at  least  to 
the  year  1180. 


2  Anomalous  Laws,  Book  x.  chap, 
vii.  §  19  (Owen,  Vol.  II.  p.  331). 

3  Ibid.  chap.  ix.  (Vol.  II.  p.  347). 

4  Ibid.    Book   viii.   chap.   xi.    §  19 
(Vol.  II.  p.  205). 

5  Ibid.    Book    xi.    chap.    iii.    §   15 
(Vol.  II.  p.  409). 


XVIII. 
IRELAND  AND  SCOTLAND. 

In  a  previous  section  it  has  already  been  shown  that  the 
rule  of  celibacy  was  observed  by  the  Celtic  churches  of  the 
British  Islands  during  a  period  in  which  their  Christianity 
was  a  model  for  the  rest  of  Europe.  Their  religion,  how- 
ever, could  not  preserve  its  purity  and  simplicity  amid  the 
overwhelming  barbarism  of  those  dreary  ages.  From  an 
ancient  commentary  on  the  "  Cain  Patraic,"  or  Patrick's 
Law,  of  uncertain  date,  but  probably  belonging  to  the  ninth 
or  tenth  century,  it  would  seem  as  though  there  were  at 
that  time  two  classes  of  bishops,  one  bound  by  monastic 
vows,*the  other  permitted  to  marry;  and,  what  is  somewhat 
singular,  the  law  appears  to  favor  the  latter,  for  the  "  cumad 
espuc,"  or  virgin  bishop,  is  condemned  to  perpetual  degrada- 
tion or  to  the  life  of  a  hermit  for  offences  which  the  "  bishop 
of  one  wife"  can  redeem  by  prompt  penance.1 

The  Feini,  prior  to  the  advent  of  St.  Patrick,  were  far  in 
advance  of  the  contemporary  barbarian  tribes,  and  their  con- 
version to  Christianity  introduced  a  new  and  powerful  element 
of  progress.  It  was  not  lasting,  however,  and  they  lapsed 
into  a  condition  but  little  removed  from  that  of  savages.  The 
marriage  tie  was  virtually  unknown  or  habitually  disregarded 
among  the  laity.2     What  was  the  condition  of  the  clergy  may 


1  Senchus  Mor.  Introduction,  pp.  stone  such  as  he  had  seen  abroad, 
57-9.  (Edited  by  Hancock,  Dublin,  the  mere  laying  of  the  foundations 
1865.)  aroused  the  wonderment  of  the  people 

,  T       .        .  -p,  .  ,   0„  00       u  j-  to  whom  buildings  of  that  kind  were 

2  Lanfranci  Epist.  3/,  38. — Bernardi         ,  u        5  *    *         m  j 

TT-i.    o    ^r  i     i-  riM  unknown — "  quod  in  terra  ilia  necdum 

Vit.  S.  Malachiae  cap.  in.  vm. — I  he      .  ,.      ,.1  .     .  .       .  .  ,,  , 

,  -41  r       ,  ,  eiusmodi  sedihcia  invenirentur" — and 

rudeness  of  the  aee  may  be  measured  ■  ,  .  .  „   .     .        ,        .  e   .. 

i      n     e    L  ,i.   i    "  i,       m  i     i,-  j  i.  his    enemies  took    advantage  of   the 

by  the  fact  that  when  Malachi  deter-  ~    ,.       ,     .    .     e  ..,    .,  °        , 

'.      ,  .       ,         .,  ,  ,  feeling  to  interfere  with  the  work  on 

miued  to  adorn  the  venerable  monas-  .,        n        ,    .,    .          -,  . 

.  ,  0       .  ..,  .  ..  the  ground  that  such  an  enterprise 

tery  of  Benchor  with  an  oratory  ot  ,  °  * 


310 


IRELAND    AND    SCOTLAND, 


be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  episcopates  were  regarded 
as  the  private  property  of  certain  families  in  which  they 
descended  by  hereditary  succession.  Thus,  in  the  primatial 
see  of  Armagh,  fifteen  archbishops  were  of  one  house,  the 
last  eight  of  whom  were  married.  At  length  Celsus,  who 
died  in  about  the  year  1130,  bequeathed  the  dignity  to  his 
friend  St.  Malachi.  The  kindred  rose  in  arms  at  this  infringe- 
ment of  their  rights,  and  two  of  their  members  successively 
occupied  the  position,  which  Malachi  was  not  able  to  obtain 
until  the  anger  of  God  had  miraculously  destroyed  the  whole 
family.1 

During  all  this  period  the  Irish  church  had  been  com- 
pletely independent  of  the  central  authority  at  Rome,  but  the 
extension  of  influence  resulting  from  the  labors  of  Hildebrand 
and  his  successors  soon  began  to  make  itself  felt.  In  the 
quarrels  concerning  the  succession  of  Archbishop  Celsus, 
there  figures  a  certain  Bishop  Gilbert,  who  is  described  as 
being  the  first  papal  legate  seen  in  Ireland.2  When  Malachi 
abandoned  Armagh  and  revived  the  extinct  episcopate  of 
Down,  he  resolved  on  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome  to  obtain  the 
pallium,  a  powerful  instrument  of  papal  authority,  until  then 
unknown  on  the  island ;  and  perhaps  the  opposition  mani- 
fested to  his  wishes  by  his  friends  as  well  as  by  the  authori- 
ties may  be  attributable  to  a  repugnance  towards  the  gradual 
encroachments  of  Romanizing  influence.3 

Malachi  returned  from  Rome  armed  with  legatine  powers, 
and  proceeded  vigorously  with  the  reforms  which  he  had  lorfg 
before  commenced.  He  held  numerous  councils,  extirpating 
abuses  everywhere,  renovating  the  ancient  rules  of  discipline 


was  unheard  of,  and  that  so  stupen- 
dous an  undertaking  could  never  be 
accomplished.  This  piece  of  pre- 
sumption was  promptly  rebuked  by 
the  death  of  the  ringleader,  and  by 
the  finding  in  the  excavations  of  a 
treasure  which  enabled  St.  Malachi 
to  execute  his  plans.  (Vit.  S.  Malach. 
c.  xxviii.)  St.  Bernard,  who  derived 
his  impressions  from  Malachi  and  his 
companions,  thus  describes  the  Irish 
of  Connaught,  "  sic  protervos  ad 
mores,   sic   ferales    ad    ritus,   sic   ad 


fidem  impios,  ad  leges  barbaros,  cer- 
vicosos  ad  disciplinam,  spurcos  ad 
vitam.  Christiani  nomine,  re  pagani. 
Non  decimas,  non  primitias  dare,  non 
legitima  inire  conjugia,  non  facere 
confessiones  ;  poenitentias  nee  qui  pe- 
teret,  nee  qui  daret  penitus  in  venire. 
Ministri  altaris  pauci  admodum 
erant." — Ibid.  cap.  viii. 

1  Ibid.  c.  x.  xi.  xii.  xiii. 

2  Ibid.  c.  x. 

3  Ibid.  c.  xv. 


REFORMS    OF    MALACHI 


311 


and  introducing  new  ones,  bending  all  his  energies  to  abro- 
gating the  national  institutions  and  replacing  them  with  those 
of  Eome.1  The  earnest  asceticism  of  his  nature,  exaggerated 
by  the  training  of  his  youth,  led  him  to  give  a  strongly  mo- 
nastic character  to  the  church  of  which  he  was  thus  the 
second  founder.  On  his  journey  homeward  from  Eome,  he 
had  stopped  a  second  time  at  Clairvaux  to  see  his  friend  St. 
Bernard,  and  had  left  there  four  of  his  attendants  to  be  exer- 
cised in  the  severe  Cistercian  discipline  that  they  might  serve 
as  missionaries  and  as  models  for  his  compatriots,  who  had 
heard,  indeed,  of  monkhood,  but  had  never  seen  it.2  His 
efforts,  in  this  respect,  were  to  a  considerable  extent  success- 
ful, at  least  in  a  portion  of  the  island,  though  his  death, 
in  1149,  at  the  comparatively  early  age  of  54,  cut  short  his 
labors  before  they  could  yield  their  full  fruit.3 

The  incongruous  character  thus  imparted  to  the  Irish 
church  is  described  by  Giraldus  Cambrensis  some  forty  years 
later.  The  prelates  were  selected  from  the  monasteries,  and 
the  church  was  completely  monastic.  Chastity  was  the  only 
rule  of  discipline  thoroughly  preserved,  and  Giraldus  con- 
fesses his  wonder  that  it  could  be  maintained,  in  contradiction 
to  all  former  experience,  when  gluttony  and  drunkenness 
were  carried  to  excess.  The  monastic  principle  of  selfishness 
was  all -pervading,  and  the  pastors  took  no  care  of  their  flocks. 
Among  the  people,  marriage  was  still  unknown,  incest  was  of 
common  occurrence,  even  the  rudiments  of  Christian  faith 
were  left  untaught,  and  the  church  was  regarded  without 
reverence.4     His  account  of  the  absence  of  regular  stipends 


1  Ibid.  c.  xviii. — Fiunt  de  medio 
barbarica?  leges,  Roman*  introducun- 
tur.— Ibid.  c.  viii. 

2  Ibid.  c.  xvi. — Illse  gentes  quae  a 
diebus  antiquis  monacbi  quidem  no- 
men  audierunt,  monachum  non  vide- 
runt. 

3  In  the  hymn  in  which  St.  Bernard 
celebrated  tbe  virtues  of  his  friend  he 
compares  him  to  the  Apostles  — 

Sobrius  victus,  castitas  perennis, 
Fides,  doctrina,  animarum  lucra, 
Mentis  parem  ccetui  permiscet 
Apostolorum. 


*  Cum  enim  omnes  fere  Hibernise 
prselati  de  monasteriis  inclerum  elec- 
ti  Bint,  quae  monachi  sunt  sollicite 
complent  omnia,  quae  vero  clerici  vel 
prselati  fere  prsetermittunt  universa  .  . 
Gens  haec  gens  spurcissima,  gens  vitiis 
obvolutissima,  gens  omnium  gentium 
in  fidei  rudimentis  incultissima.  Non- 
dum  enim  decimas  vel  primitias  sol- 
vunt,  nondum  matrimonia  contra- 
hunt.  Non  incestus  vitant ;  non 
ecclesiam  Dei  cum  debita  reverentia 
frequentant.  etc. — Sermo  Giraldi  in 
Concil.  Dublinens.  (De  Rebus  a  se 
Gestis  Lib.  n.  c.  14.) 


312  IRELAND   AND    SCOTLAND. 

and  tithes  is  confirmed  by  trie  fact  that  an  Irish  bishop  attend- 
ing the  council  of  Lateran  in  1179,  in  complaining  of  the 
condition  of  his  native  church,  stated  that  his  only  revenues 
were  derived  from  three  milch  cows,  which  his  flock  were 
bound  to  replace  as  they  became  dry.1  This  poverty,  how- 
ever apostolic  in  itself,  can  only,  in  an  age  of  magnificent 
sacerdotalism,  be  regarded  as  an  indication  of  a  church  whose 
degradation  could  command  neither  the  respect  nor  the  sup- 
port of  its  children.  That  the  reforms  of  Malachi,  one-sided 
as  they  were,  extended  only  over  a  portion  of  the  island,  is 
evident  from  the  inquiry  which,  a  few  years  later,  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Cashel  addressed  to  Clement  III.  as  to  whether  the 
children  of  bishops  could  receive  orders  and  hold  benefices  ; 
and  the  exceptional  character  of  the  Irish  establishment  was 
recognized  by  the  pope  when  he  decided  that  they  could,  pro- 
vided they  were  born  in  wedlock,  and  were  otherwise  worthy 
of  position.2 

When  about  this  period  the  English  commenced  the  conquest 
which  was  to  lead  to  five  centuries  of  cruel  anarchy,  they  of 
course  carried  with  them  their  civil  and  ecclesiastical  institu- 
tions. The  original  conquerors — the  Butlers,  the  Clares,  and 
the  Fitzgeralds — speedily  became  incorporated  with  the  native 
race,  and  were  as  Irish  as  the  O'Briens  and  the  McCauras. 
Although  the  royal  authority  was  limited  practically  to  the 
confines  of  the  Pale,  and  embraced  little  beyond  the  Ostman 
ports,  yet  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  the  clerical  license 
habitual  to  the  English  spread  beyond  the  political  bounda- 
ries, and  the  monastic  spirit  of  the  Hibernians  was  grievously 
wounded  by  the  unchastity  which  was  disseminated  like  a 
contagion  from  the  dissolute  priests  who  followed  in  the  wake 
of  Strong-bow  and  Prince  John.3     Not  twenty  years  after  the 


1  Se  non  habere  alios  reditus  prse- 
ter  tres  vaccas  lactantes,  quas  in  de- 
fectu  lactis  parochiani  sui  per  alias 
innovabant. — Hist.  Archiep.  Bre- 
mens  aim.  1179  (Lindenbrog.  Script. 
Septent.  p.  107). 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  however, 
that  in  the  Irish  church  bishops  were 


ecclesipe  singulos  haberent  episcopos." 
— Bernard.  Vit.  S.  MalachiaB  cap.  x. 

2  Cap.  13  Extra  Lib.  i.  Tit.  xvii. 

3  Docens  munditiam  cleri  Hybernise 
quanta  fuerat,  donee  ex  contagio  adve- 
narum,  quoniam  a  convictu  mores 
formantur,  et  qui  picem  tangit  coin- 


almost  as  numerous  as  in  the  primi-  !  quinabitur    ab    ea,   corruptelam   con- 
tive  church  of  Africa — "  singulae  pene    traxerunt. — Girald.  Cambrens.  op.  cit. 

Lib.  ii.  c.  13. 


THE    ANGLO-IRISH    CHURCH  —  THE   CULDEES.    313 

first  invasion,  a  council,  summoned  in  1186  by  John  in  Dub- 
lin, was  troubled  by  a  quarrel  between  the  Saxon  priests  of 
Wexford,  who  mutually  accused  each  other  of  publicly  mar- 
rying and  keeping  wives.  This  being  duly  proved,  they 
were  promptly  degraded,  to  the  intense  satisfaction  of  the 
Irish  clergy,  triumphant  in  their  own  comparative  purity  of 
morals.1  Yet  the  church  establishments  were  distinct,  and 
when  an  Irish  synod,  therefore,  was  held  in  Dublin,  in  1217, 
its  canons  cannot  be  considered  as  having  authority  beyond 
the  narrow  territory  through  which  the  king's  writ  would 
likewise  run.  Those  canons  show  us  that  the  morality  of  the 
Saxon  priesthood  had  not  improved  by  the  example  made 
of  the  priests  of  Wexford.  The  denunciations  of  concubi- 
nage indicate  the  prevalence  of  that  vice,  and  the  severities 
threatened  against  the  unfortunate  women  contrast  strangely 
with  the  lenity  shown  to  their  more  guilty  partners.2  A  cen- 
tury later,  if  we  may  believe  the  declaration  of  the  synod  of 
Ossory  in  1320,  the  evil  continued  to  flourish,  open,  avowed, 
and  universal,  resisting  alike  the  authority  of  the  church  and 
the  efforts  to  repress  it  by  severity.3  Whether  the  offenders 
dismissed  their  consorts  after  the  thirty  days'  grace  allowed 
by  the  synod  may  well  be  doubted. 

In  Scotland,  the  followers  of  St.  Columba,  Columbites  or 
Culdees,  in  the  age  of  darkness  which  succeeded  the  early 
transient  gleam  of  civilization,  rapidly  degenerated  from  the 
standard  erected  by  their  leader.  When  they  reappear  in 
history,  after  that  trackless  night  of  barbarism,  we  find  them 
in  the  eleventh  century  as  an  order  of  monks,  indeed,  in 
name,  yet  fulfilling  the  functions  of  the  secular  clergy  with 
marriage  as  an  established  institution.  With  marriage  had 
necessarily  come  the  subdivision  and  appropriation  of  the 


1  Girald.  Cambrens.  loc.  cit.  I  ica  severitas  illud  bactenus  extirpare 

■Conoil.  Dublinens.  ann.  1217  \  F°tuit'  qu.ia  \n  SmB  PerPet.uae  df miia" 
(Wilkin-   I    548")  i  tloms  penculum,  et  ordims  ecclesias- 

I  ticse  ignorainiam,  populique  pernicio- 

3  Quia  putridum  libidinosae  spur-  sum  exemplum  manifestum,  adhuc 
citise  contagium  adeo  apud  clericos  et  suas  publice  detinent  concubinas, 
presbyteros  invaluit  bis  diebus,  quod  etc. — Constit.  Synod.  Ossoriens.  (Wil- 
nec  auctoritas  evangelica,  nee  canon-    kins,  II.  502.) 


314  IRELAND   AND    SCOTLAND. 

ecclesiastical  estates,  so  that  the  ancient  abbeys  and  churches 
were  well  nigh  stripped  of  all  their  possessions,  and  the  dis- 
tinction between  clergy  and  laity  was  rather  in  term  than  in 
fact.  It  may  please  the  poet  to  construct  a  world  of  his  own, 
peopled  by  imaginary  beings  of  angelic  purity — 

Peace  to  their  shades  !     The  pure  Culdees 

Were  Albyn's  earliest  priests  of  God, 
Ere  yet  an  island  of  her  seas 

By  foot  of  Saxon  monk  was  trod, 
Long  ere  her  churchmen  by  bigotry 
Were  barred  from  wedlock's  holy  tie. 
'Twas  then  that  Aodh,  famed  afar, 

In  Iona  preached  the  word  with  power, 
And  Reullura,  beauty's  star, 

Was  the  partner  of  his  bower — 

but  in  sober  truth  the  Culdees  were  pure  as  long  as  they  kept 
the  tradition  of  their  founder,  and  it  was  not  until  they  sank 
to  a  level  with  their  savage  compatriots  that  they  transgressed 
the  rule  and  became  worldly  and  corrupt.  In  1125  the  Cardi- 
nal-legate, John  of  Crema,  whose  unlucky  adventure  in  London 
has  been  already  alluded  to,  visited  Scotland  in  the  execution 
of  his  reformatory  mission.  There  he  found  on  the  throne 
David  I.,  a  prince  whose  life  was  devoted  to  rescuing  his  sub- 
jects from  their  primeval  barbarism.  "We  know  few  details 
of  the  history  of  those  times,  but  it  is  fair  to  conjecture  that 
the  exhortations  of  the  legate  had  a  share  in  arousing  David 
to  a  realization  of  the  deficiencies  and  the  corruptions  of  the 
Scottish  church,  and  in  guiding  him  to  the  course  which  he 
adopted  in  their  reformation.  After  some  fruitless  efforts  to 
restore  the  order  of  Culdees  to  its  original  condition,  he  re- 
solved on  the  sweeping  measure  of  removing  all  who  should 
prove  incorrigible.  They  were  accordingly  turned  out  bodily 
from  their  establishments,  such  property  as  could  be  traced 
was  restored,  and  donations  on  an  extended  scale  were  made 
both  to  the  old  foundations  and  to  the  new  ones  which  the 
royal  reformer  established — donations  which  gained  for  him, 
from  an  ungodly  descendant,  the  appellation  of  "  Ane  soir 
sanct  for  the  crown."  These  foundations  were  then  filled 
with  regular  clergy,  brought  from  France  and  England — 


THE    SCOTTISH    CHURCH    REFORMED.  315 

chiefly  canons  of  the  order  of  St.  Augustine — and  the  un- 
fortunate Culdees  were  turned  adrift.1 

In  a  church  thus  constructed  from  the  regular  clergy,  the 
heresy  of  marriage  could  find  no  foothold,  especially  as  it  had 
been  so  sternly  punished  in  the  expulsion  of  the  Culdees.  Still 
was  the  desired  purity  not  yet  attained.  In  1225,  Honorius 
III.  ordered  the  Scottish  ecclesiastics  to  assemble  in  council 
for  the  correction  of  the  many  enormities  which  were  com- 
mitted with  impunity ;  and  the  council  held  in  obedience  to 
the  papal  command  denounced  the  shameless  licentiousness 
of  the  clergy  as  a  disgrace  to  the  church.2  Inquests  to  detect 
the  offenders,  suspension  and  deprivation  to  punish  them, 
were  ordered  with  all  the  verbal  energy  of  which  we  have 
already  witnessed  so  many  examples,  and  were  attended  with 
the  same  plentiful  lack  of  success.  With  what  disposition 
the  clergy  regarded  these  efforts  for  their  improvement  we 
may  guess  from  the  reception  which  they  gave  to  the  consti- 
tutions of  Cardinal  Ottoboni.  Eeference  has  already  been 
made  to  the  council  held  by  that  legate  in  London  in  1268. 
The  church  of  Scotland  had  been  ordered  to  join  in  this 
council,  and  had  sent  two  bishops  and  two  abbots  as  its  repre- 
sentative delegates.  These  took  home  with  them  the  consti- 
tutions of  Ottoboni,  which  the  clergy  of  Scotland  utterly 
refused  to  obev.3 


1  Professor    Cosmo    Innes,    in    his  ordinary  powers   on  David  before  he 

very  clever  work,  "  Scotland  in   the  could  have  the  presumption  to  thus 

Middle  Ages,"  to  which  I  acknowledge  arbitrarily  regulate  and  revolutionize 

my   indebtedness,    gives    (p.    Ill)    a  the  church.    This,  indeed,  may  readily 

translation  of  a  charter  of  King  David  be  conceived  as  probable  when  we  re- 

which  well  illustrates  the  summary  fleet  how  little  authority  Rome  could 

process  of   his   reformation — "I  give  have  exercised  over  the  Culdees,  and 

to   the   canons    of    St.    Andrews    the  how  readily  Scotland  must  have  been 

island  of  Loch  Leven,  that  they  may  subjected    to   the    central    power   by 

there  institute  their  order  of  canons  ;  placing   her    ecclesiastical    establish- 

and  the  Culdees  who  shall  be  fo%id  ment  in  the  hands  of  the  Sassenach 

there,  if  they  please  to  live  regularly,  monks. 

let  them  remain  in  peace  under  the  „  n       .,    0     ,.                    ,or)-        ,n 

canons;    but  if   any  of  them    resist  *?™?        ^f^  ^  1225>C-18' 

this  rule,  I  will  and  command  that  he  62  (Wllkins>  L  610>- 

be  turned  out  of  the  island."      We  3  Quae  penitus  clerus  Scotise  obser- 

may  assume  that  John  of   Crema  or  vare  recusarunt. — Chron.   Paslatens. 

the  pope  must  have  conferred  extra-  ann.  12G8  (Wilkins,  II.  19). 


<     LI  li  U  A  i 

C  N  l  V  KKSIT'Y    Oi 

CALIFORNIA. 


XIX. 
SPAIN. 

We  have  already  seen  (p.  124)  that  among  the  Wisigoths 
of  Spain  the  rule  of  celibacy  had  never  been  successfully 
enforced,  and  that  during  the  later  period  of  the  Gothic 
dynasty  the  demoralization  of  the  clergy  was  daily  increas- 
ing. The  Saracenic  invasion,  and  the  subsequent  struggles 
of  the  Christians,  who  founded  petty  kingdoms  among  the 
wild  mountainous  regions  of  the  North  and  East  of  the  Pe- 
ninsula, were  not  favorable  to  the  growth  of  regular  disci- 
pline and  settled  observances.  The  centralized  sacerdotalism 
of  Eome,  which  took  so  remarkable  an  extension  in  the 
ninth  and  tenth  centuries,  and  which  penetrated  every  por- 
tion of  the  Carlovingian  empire,  was  powerless  to  intrude 
into  the  strongholds  of  the  Djalikiah,  whence  the  descendants 
of  Pelayo  and  his  companions  gradually  extended  their 
frontiers  from  Oviedo  to  Toledo.  Communication  with  the 
apostolic  city  was  rare.  The  nominal  subjection  of  Barce- 
lona and  Navarre  to  the  Carlovingians,  indeed,  brought  the 
eastern  provinces  of  Spain  under  the  domination  of  the 
Archbishops  of  Narbonne,  and  kept  them,  to  a  certain  extent, 
under  the  influences  which  were  moulding  the  rest  of  Europe; 
but  the  kingdoms  of  Leon  and  Castile  grew  up  in  complete 
ecclesiastical  independence.  Even  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh 
century  a  Spanish  ecclesiastic  (fescribes  his  contemporary 
brethren  as  rude  and  illiterate,  owning  no  obedience  to  the 
mother  church  of  Eome,  and  governed  by  the  discipline  of 
Toledo.1     Wild  and  insubordinate  as  was  a  large  portion  of 


1  Tunc  temporis  tota  fere  Hispania  I  aut  obedientise  quidquam  tunc  redde- 
rudis  et  illiterata  esset.  Nullus  equi-  bat.  Hispania  Toletanam,  non  Ro- 
dem  Hispanorum  episcopus  sanctse  ;  manara  legem  recipiebat. — Hist.  Com- 
Romanae  ecclesise  naatri  nostrse  servitii    postellan.  Lib.  n.  c.  1. 


MARRIAGE    UNIVERSAL.  317 

the  European  clergy,  the  ecclesiastics  of  Spain  were  even 
wilder  and  more  insubordinate.  Another  writer  of  the 
period,  himself  a  canon  of  Compostella,  and  subsequently 
Bishop  of  Mondonego,  speaking  of  his  brother  canons  pre- 
vious to  the  reforms  of  Diego  Gelmirez,  denounces  them  as 
reckless  and  violent  men,  ready  for  any  crime,  prompt  in 
quarrel,  and  even  occasionally  indulging  in  mutual  slaugh- 
ter.1 How  little,  indeed,  there  was  to  distinguish  the  c^erk 
from  the  layman  is  evident  from  a  regulation  promulgated 
by  the  council  of  Compostella  in  1113.  It  provides  that  all 
priests,  gentlemen,  and  peasants  shall  devote  themselves  to 
wolf-hunting  on  every  Sunday  except  Easter  and  Pentecost, 
under  a  penalty  of  a  fine  of  five  sols  for  the  priest  and  gentle- 
man, and  one  sol,  or  a  sheep,  for  the  peasant — visitation  of 
the  sick  being  the  only  excuse  exempting  the  priest  from 
the  performance  of  this  duty.  Every  church,  moreover,  was 
bound  to  furnish  for  the  hunt  seven  iron-tipped  reeds.2 

In  such  a  state  of  society  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  the 
rule  of  celibacy  received  little  attention.  According  to 
Mariana,  the  clergy  of  the  period  were,  for  the  most  part, 
publicly  married;3  and  when,  in  1056,  the  council  of  Compos- 
tella specifically  forbade  to  bishops  and  monks  all  intercourse 
with  women,  except  with  mothers  and  sisters,4  the  inference 
is  fair  that  even  so  elementary  a  prohibition  was  an  innova- 
tion, and  that  the  secular  clergy,  below  the  episcopate,  were 
not  regarded  as  subject  to  any  restriction. 

In  the  comprehensive  efforts,  however,  made  during  the 
latter  half  of  the  eleventh  century  by  the  Eoman  church  to 
bring  all  Christendom  under  its  domination,  the  rising  states 
of  Spain  were  not  likely  to  remain  undisturbed  in  their  inde- 
pendent isolation;  nor  was  it  to  be  expected  that  so  complete 
a  defiance  of  the  canons  would  be  passed  unobserved  by  the 
pontiffs  who  were  convulsing  the  rest  of  Europe  in  their 
efforts  to  reform  the  church.  Accordingly,  in  1068,  we  find 
the  Cardinal  Hugo  of  Silva  Candida,  as  legate  of  Alexander 
II.,  assembling  a  council  at  Girona,  and  procuring  the  adoption 


1  Hist.  Compostellan.  Lib.  i.  c.  20.   I      3  Mariana,  Lib.  ix. 

2  Didaci  Decret.  No.  15  (Hist.  Com-       4  Conoil.  Compostellan.  ann.  1056, 
postellan.  Lib.  i.  cap.  90.)  lean.  3. 


318 


SPAIN. 


of  a  regulation  reducing  to  the  condition  of  laymanship  all 
who,  in  holy  orders,  either  entered  into  matrimony  or  kept 
concubines;  while  those  who  should  dismiss  their  wives 
were  promised  immunity  for  the  past  and  security  for  the 
future.1  In  1077,  Gregory  VII.  sent  a  certain  Bishop  Aman- 
dus  as  his  legate,  with  an  epistle  addressed  to  the  Spaniards, 
in  which  he  told  them  that  Spain  had  anciently  belonged  to 
St.  Peter  and  the  Eoman  church ;  that  the  carelessness  of  his 
predecessors,  and  the  Saracenic  conquest,  had  caused  the 
papal  rights  to  be  forgotten,  but  that  the  time  had  come  for 
them  to  be  re- vindicated,  and  that  he  consequently  claimed 
implicit  obedience.2  Accordingly,  in  1078,  we  find  the  legate 
presiding  over  another  council  at  Girona,  which  confirmed 
the  canons  of  the  previous  one,  and  added  several  others  to 
prevent  the  ordination  of  sons  of  priests,  and  the  hereditary 
transmission  of  benefices.3  Such  slender  reforms  as  may 
have  resulted  from  these  efforts  were  probably  confined  to 
Catalonia  and  Aragon;  but  not  long  afterwards  influences 
were  brought  to  bear  upon  the  rest  of  Spain,  which  had  a 
powerful  effect  in  extending  the  authority  of  Eome  over  the 
Peninsula.  Constance  of  Burgundy,  Queen  of  Alphonso  YI. 
of  Castile  and  Leon,  prevailed  upon  her  husband  to  ask  of 
Gregory  a  legate  to  reform  the  church,  and  to  condemn  the 
Gothic  or  Mozarabic  ritual,  which  was  jealously  preserved 
by  the  people  as  a  symbol  of  their  independent  nationality. 
The  prayer,  of  course,  was  granted.  Eichard,  Abbot  of  Mar- 
seilles, was  sent,  and  in  1080  he  held  a  council  at  Burgos, 
where  he  commanded  the  ordained  clergy  to  put  away  their 
wives.  The  novelty  and  hardship  of  this  order  created  great 
excitement.  The  pope,  who  was  rightly  regarded  as  its 
author,  became  the  object  of  no  little  abuse  and  insult,  and 
was  held  up  to  popular  derision  in  innumerable  lampoons.4 


1  Concil.  Gerundens.  ami.  1068,  can. 
7,  8  (Labbei  et  Coleti  T.  XII.).  The 
council  of  Toulouse,  in  105b'  (see  ante, 
p.  268),  which  ordered  the  separation 
of  priests  from  their  wives,  undertook 
to  include  Spain  in  its  legislation, 
presumably  meaning  the  eastern  por- 
tion of  the  Peninsula  which  was  sub- 
ject to  the  Archbishops  of  Narbonne. 


2  Gregor.  VII.  Regist.  Lib.  iv. 
Epist.  28. 

3  Concil.  Gerundens.  ami.  1078, 
can.  1,  3,  4,  5  (Labbei  et  Coleti  T. 
XII.). 

4  Leges  ecclesise  veteres  in  mores 
revocatse  ;  ac  prsesertim,  quod  in 
Germania    non    absque    motu   facti- 


HESITATION   IN    ENFORCING    REFORM.         319 

All  of  these  efforts  were  nugatory.  The  Spaniards,  en- 
gaged in  an  interminable  and  often  doubtful  struggle  with 
the  Infidel,  might  well  claim  consideration  from  the  Holy 
Father,  while  the  independent  spirit  which  they  manifested 
in  their  resistance  to  the  introduction  of  the  Koman  ritual 
was  a  warning  that  it  would  be  prudent  not  to  proceed 
too  abruptly  in  the  process  of  bringing  them  within  the 
fold  of  St.  Peter.  Whatever  be  the  motives,  indeed,  which 
induced  such  strenuous  apostles  of  celibacy  as  Gregory, 
Urban,  Paschal,  and  Calixtus  to  abstain  from  urging  upon 
them  the  reform  which  was  so  earnestly  enforced  elsewhere, 
certain  it  is  that  little  effort  was  made  to  deprive  the 
Spanish  clergy  of  their  wives.  In  all  the  epistles  of  the 
popes  up  to  1130  I  can  find  but  one  allusion  to  the  subject, 
though  communication  between  Spain  and  Italy  became  daily 
more  frequent,  and  the  papal  authority  was  constantly  exer- 
cised with  greater  decisiveness  in  the  internal  affairs  of  the 
Spanish  church. 

When,  in  1101,  Diego  Gelmirez  succeeded  in  obtaining  the 
see  of  Compostella,  Paschal  II.  addressed  him  an  epistle, 
reproaching  him  with  the  utter  contempt  of  discipline  in  his 
diocese,  and  commanding  a  reform.  He  chiefly  complained 
of  the  incongruous  common  residence  of  monks  and  nuns, 
which  he  severely  condemned-  and  peremptorily  prohibited, 
but  he  made  some  concession  to  the  necessities  of  the  time 
in  permitting  the  ordination  of  the  sons  of  priests  who  had, 
"according  to  the  ordinary  custom  of  the  country,"  married 
prior  to  the  promulgation  of  what  the  pope  significantly 
terms  the  Eoman  law.1 

Diego,  who  possessed  no  common  measure  of  vigor  and 
ambition,  and  who  needed  the  particular  favor  of  the  popes 
for  the  success  of  his  plans  in  elevating  and  aggrandiz- 
ing  his   see,   accordingly  proceeded   to   reform   his  clergy. 


latum  erat,  uxores  sacerdotibus  de-  i  liis  probrosisque   carminibus  passim 


tractse ;  quas,  prisci  moris  obliti,  et 
voluptatum  illecebris  superati,  ple- 
rique  babere  consueverant.  Quse  res 
sanctissimo  pontifici  invidiam  pepe- 
rit,  usque  eo  ut  conviciis  et  contume- 


ejus  nomen  proscinderent. — Mariana, 
Lib.  ix.  (Harduin.  Concil.  T.  VI.  P.  i. 
p.  1606). 

1  Paschal.  PP.  II.  Epist.  57. 


320  SPAIN. 

There  is  extant  a  minute  and  circumstantial  contemporary 
history  of  his  episcopate,  written  by  his  admiring  disciples, 
who  dwell  with  much  instance  on  his  labors  and  success  in 
reducing  to  discipline  the  refractory  canons  of  his  cathedral 
seat;  but  in  the  numerous  allusions  to  these  reforms  there  is 
no  mention  of  the  enforcement  of  celibacy,  while  the  fact 
that  he  would  not  allow  them  to  minister  at  the  altar  without 
canonical  vestments  is  made  the  subject  of  repeated  gratu- 
lation  and  praise.1  The  absolute  silence  of  the  authors  with 
respect  to  the  clergy  at  large  shows  that  there  was  no  effort 
made  to  bring  the  secular  priesthood  under  subjection  to  the 
Eoman  discipline. 

That  Diego's  reforms,  indeed,  did  not  extend  to  the  abro- 
gation of  clerical  marriage  is  evident  from  several  incidental 
circumstances.  Thus,  in  1114,  the  lords  of  the  monastery  of 
Botoa  made  it  over  to  the  church  of  St.  lago  of  Compostella, 
reserving  to  themselves  their  life  interest,  with  a  reversion  to 
any  of  their  descendants  who  should  be  ecclesiastics,  and  who 
might  be  willing  to  profess  celibacy,  showing  that  the  matter 
was  optional  with  the  secular  clergy.2  That  even  the 
canons  were  bound  by  no  absolute  rules  on  the  subject  is 
manifested  by  a  very  curious  transaction  which  may  be  worth 
recounting  as  illustrative  in  several  aspects  of  the  spirit  of 
the  age.  In  1127,  Diego,  at  the  head  of  his  Gallician  troops, 
accompanied  Alphonso  VIII.  on  an  expedition  into  Portugal. 
On  their  return,  the  army  halted  at  Compostella,  where  the 
archbishop  received  and  entertained  his  sovereign.  They 
were  bound  by  the  closest  ties,  for  Diego  had  baptized, 
knighted,  and  crowned  him,  and  had,  moreover,  constantly 
stood  his  friend  throughout  his  stormy  youth,  in  the  endless 
civil  wars  which  marked  the  disastrous  reign  of  his  mother, 
Queen  Urraca.  Yet,  prompted  by  evil  counsellors  who  were 
jealous  of  Diego,  the   king  suddenly  demanded  of  him  an 


1  Hist.  Compostellan.  Lib.  i.  cap.  20, 
58,  81 ;  Lib.  n.  cap.  3  ;  Lib.  in.  cap. 
46. — Even  the  moderate  reforms  in- 
troduced met  with  violent  opposition 
— "  nobis  omnibus,  veluti  bruta  ani- 
malia,  nulla  adhuc  jugali  asperitate 
depressa,  reluctantibus" — and  only  a 


portion  seem  to  have  submitted  " quos- 
dam  sibi  acquiescentes  doctrina  et 
operatione  conspicuos  divina  dementia 
reddidit." 

1  Ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  100. — "  Si  qui  ex 
eorum  progenie  clerici  esse  et  ssecu- 
lariter  continere  vellent." 


SACERDOTAL    MARRIAGE    UNDISTURBED.       321 

enormous  sum  of  money,  to  pay  off  the  army,  under  threat 
of  seizing  and  pillaging  the  city.  After  considerable  resist- 
ance, Diego  was  forced  to  submit,  and  to  pay  a  thousand 
marks  of  silver.  He  then  sought  a  private  interview,  in 
which  he  solemnly  and  affectionately  warned  Alphonso  of 
the  ruin  of  his  soul  which  would  ensue  if  he  did  not  undergo 
penance  for  thus  impiously  spoiling  the  Apostle  St.  Iago. 
Alphonso  listened  humbly,  and  professed  entire  willingness  to 
repent,  but  for  the  difficulty  that  he  had  always  been  taught 
that  penitence  was  fruitless  without  restitution,  and  resti- 
tution he  was  unable  and  unwilling  to  make.  Diego  then 
suggested  that  he  should  meet  the  chapter  and  discuss  the 
case,  to  which  he  graciously  assented.  In  the  assembly  which 
followed,  Diego  proposed  that  the  king  should  follow  the 
example  of  his  father,  Raymond  of  Gallicia,  in  commending 
himself  to  the  peculiar  patronage  of  St.  Iago,  and  in  be- 
queathing his  body  to  be  buried  in  their  church,  promising 
moreover  that  if  he  should  do  so  they  would  pray  specially 
for  him,  which,  from  the  promise  of  his  youth,  bade  fair  to 
be  no  easy  task.  Alphonso  was  delighted  to  escape  so  easily: 
he  eagerly  accepted  the  proposition,  and  added  that  he  would 
like  to  become  a  canon  of  their  church,  in  order  to  enjoy  the 
fullest  possible  share  in  the  Masses  of  such  holy  men.  To 
this  the  chapter  assented  at  once ;  he  was  forthwith  duly  in- 
stalled as  a  canon  of  the  church  which  he  had  just  despoiled, 
and  his  conscience  was  set  at  rest,  while  the  church  felt  that 
it  had  acquired  a  moral  supremacy  over  the  spoiler.1  In 
thus  formally  becoming  a  canon,  there  could  have  been  no 
assumption  of  celibacy,  expressed  or  implied.  Alphonso  was 
but  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  in  the  following  year  he 
married  Berengaria,  daughter  of  the  Count  of  Barcelona. 

In  fact,  in  the  absence  of  urgency  on  the  part  of  Rome,  the 
question  of  sacerdotal  celibacy  seems  to  have  been  virtually 
ignored  in  Spain.  How  little  importance  was  attached  to  the 
preeminent  sanctity  of  asceticism  becomes  evident  when  we 
are  told  that  in  the  whole  of  Gallicia  there  was  no  convent  of 
nuns  until  Diego,  in  1129,  founded  the  house  of  S.  Maria  of 


1  Hist.  Compostellan.  Lib.  II.  cap.  87. 

21 


322  Spain. 

Conjo.1  Equal  indifference  is  manifested  in  the  legislative 
assemblies  of  the  church.  The  councils  of  Leon  and  Com- 
postella,  in  1114,  only  prohibited  the  residence  of  such  women 
as  were  forbidden  by  the  canons,2  which,  in  the  existing 
discipline  of  the  Spanish  church,  may  safely  be  presumed  to 
offer  no  impediment  to  the  marriage  relation ;  and  a  synod 
held  at  Palencia  in  1129  is  even  more  significant  in  its  reti- 
cence, for  it  merely  provides  that  notorious  concubines  of  the 
clergy  shall  be  ejected,  without  apparently  venturing  to 
threaten  any  punishment  on  the  reverend  offenders.3 

Towards  the  close  of  his  restless  life,  however,  Archbishop 
Diego  found  time,  amid  his  military,  political,  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal schemes  of  aggrandizement,  to  undertake  the  much  needed 
reform  of  a  single  monastery.  The  Abbot  of  S.  Pelayo  cle 
Antealtaria  was  indeed  a  paragon  of  brutish  sensuality,  who 
wasted  the  revenues  of  his  house  in  riotous  living  and  took 
no  shame  in  a  numerous  progeny.  The  archbishop  remon- 
strated with  him  long  and  earnestly,  both  in  public  and 
private :  seven  times  in  the  general  chapter  of  the  diocese  he 
admonished  and  threatened  the  offender  without  result.  At 
length,  in  1130,  after  forbearance  so  remarkable,  Diego  held 
a  chapter  in  the  abbey  for  his  trial,  when  he  was  proved  by 
competent  witnesses  to  have  kept  no  less  than  seventy  concu- 
bines. He  was  accordingly  deposed,  but  was  so  far  from  being- 
can  onically  punished,  that  a  benefice  in  the  abbey  lands  was 
assigned  for  his  support.  A  new  abbot  was  then  appointed,  who 
swore  to  observe  the  Benedictine  rule  as  far  as  he  should  find 
himself  able  to  do  so.4  It  is  a  curious  commentary  on  the 
state  of  discipline  and  opinion  to  find  so  weak  an  effort  to 
remove  and  punish  the  grossest  licentiousness  characterized 
by  the  biographer  of  Diego  with  the  warmest  expressions  of 
wondering  admiration  as  a  work  which  doubtless  gave  in- 
effable satisfaction  to  the  Divine  Omnipotence,  and  which 
was  without  example  in  previous  history. 


1  Hist.  Compostell.  Lib.  in.  cap.  11.  i  5. — Concubinae  clericorum  manifests? 


*  Ibid.    Lib.    i.    cap.   101.— Concil. 
Legionens.  arm.  1114,  can.  8. 

3  Concil.   Palentin.  ann.  1129,  can. 


ejiciantur. 

4  Hist.  Compostellan.  Lib.  in.  cap. 
20. — Pro  modulo  sure  possibilitatis. 


THE    THIRTEENTH    CENTURY.  323 

It  is  very  evident  that  the  pontiffs  who  so  energetically 
enforced  the  rule  of  celibacy  throughout  the  rest  of  Europe 
were  content  to  offer  little  opposition  to  the  obstinacy  of  the 
Celtiberian  priesthood.  We  can  safely  conclude,  indeed,  that 
matters  were  allowed  to  remain  virtually  undisturbed,  and 
that  the  clergy  were  permitted  to  retain  their  wives.  A 
council  held  in  Gallicia  in  the  early  part  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  for  the  purpose  of  reforming  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
preserves  absolute  silence  on  the  subject  of  marriage  and  con- 
cubinage;1 and,  about  the  middle  of  the  same  century,  we  find 
Alphonso  the  Wise  of  Castile  obliged  to  formally  interdict 
matrimony  to  those  in  holy  orders.  In  the  elaborate  code 
drawn  up  by  that  monarch  and  known  as  "Las  Siete  Partidas," 
there  is  a  law  punishing  sacerdotal  marriage  with  deprivation 
of  function  and  benefice;  while  the  wives,  if  vassals  of  the 
church,  are  to  be  reduced  to  servitude,  and  if  serfs,  are  to  be 
sold  and  the  proceeds  appropriated  for  the  benefit  of  the 
church  of  the  offender.  The  wording  of  the  law  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  it  was  an  enactment  intended  to  repress  exist- 
ing disorders,  and  not  merely  a  well-known  provision  inserted 
in  the  code  for  the  purpose  of  completing  a  compilation  of 
statutes;2  while  the  existence  in  secular  legislation  of  such 
invasions  of  the  province  of  ecclesiastical  law  is  a  convincing 
proof  of  the  continued  independence  of  Eome  asserted  by  the 
Spanish  church  and  state.  Although  the  prelates  were  further 
authorized  to  command  the  assistance  of  the  secular  power 
in  enforcing  these  barbarous  penalties  to  their  full  measure 
of  severity,  still  the  ecclesiastics  found  means  to  evade  them. 
In  Castile  and  Leon  the  code  of  Alphonso  did  not  long  retain 
its  authority,  and  in  the  other  Spanish  kingdoms  license  pre- 
vailed almost  unchecked. 

In  1322  the  council  of  Palencia,  in  Leon,  under  the 
presidency  of  the  papal  legate,  William  Bishop  of  Sabina, 


1  Concil.  Hispan.  Saec.  XIII.    (Mar-    clerigo  que  bobiese  urden  sagrada  non 
tene  et  Durand.  IV.  167.)  debe  linear  sin  pena,  ca  debenle  vedar 


2  "  De  los  clerigos  qne  casan  a  ben- 
diciones  babiendo   ordenes   sagradas, 


de   oficio,  et  tollerle  el  beneficio  que 
bobiere  de  la  eglesia  nor  sentencia  d< 


que  pena  deben  baber  ellos  et  aquellas    descomulgauiiento  fast,  que  la  dexe 
con  quien  casan."-Casandose  algunt    et  £**  P^^c.a  de  aquel  yerro  etc. 
"  °  — biete  Partidas,  P.  I.  Tit.  vi    1.  41. 


324  spain. 

animadverts  strongly  on  the  indecency  of  ecclesiastics,  from 
the  highest  prelates  down,  being  present  at  the  nuptials  of 
their  children,  both  legitimate  and  illegitimate.  For  those 
who  publicly  kept  concubines  it  provides  a  graduated  scale 
of  confiscation,  ending  in  the  deprivation  of  the  persistently 
contumacious  who  gave  no  prospect  of  amendment.  The 
acts  of  this  council,  moreover,  are  interesting  as  presenting 
the  first  authentic  evidence  of  a  custom  which  subsequently 
prevailed  to  some  extent  elsewhere,  by  which  parishioners 
were  wont  to  compel  their  priest  to  take  a  female  consort 
for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  virtue  of  their  families  from 
his  assaults.  The  iniquity  of  this  precaution  seems  to  have 
especially  scandalized  the  legate,  and  he  treats  the  audacious 
laymen  concerned  in  such  transactions  with  much  less  cere- 
mony than  the  concubinary  clergy.1  The  elaborate  regula- 
tions promulgated  by  this  council  produced  little  effect.  Tn 
1388,  another  was  held  at  the  same  place,  which  states  that  they 
had  been  entirely  neglected.  It  accordingly  renews  them, 
with  an  addition  by  which  all  beneficiaries  were  made  to  hold 
their  preferment  under  an  express  condition  of  chastity.2 
The  desolation  which  the  enforcement  of  such  a  stipulation 
would  have  wrought  may  be  inferred  from  the  description 
which  a  contemporary,  Alvarez  Pelayo,  Bishop  of  Silva  in 
Portugal,  gives  us  of  his  fellow  ecclesiastics.  He  states  that 
many  of  the  clergy  in  holy  orders  throughout  the  Peninsula 
publicly  associated  themselves  with  women,  frequently  of 
nob]e  blood,  binding  themselves  against  separation  by  no- 
tarial acts  and  solemn  oaths,  endowing  their  consorts  with 
the  goods  of  the  church,  and  celebrating  with  the  kindred 
these  illegal  espousals  as  joyously  as  though  they  were  legiti- 
mate nuptials.  Yet  even  this  flagrant  defiance  of  the  canons 
was  better  than  the  promiscuous  and  unrestrained  licentious- 


1  Concil.   Palentin.  arm.  1322  can.  libet  sententiae  iuterdicti,  qu?e  perso- 

vi.  vii. — Nos  iniquitatem  hujusmodi  nam  quamvis  ecclesiasticam  duxerit 

detestantes,   excommunicationis   sen-  compellandam  ad  recipiendum  in  con- 

tentise   ipso  facto   decerniinus   subja-  cubinam  mulierem  quamcunque. 
cere  quemlibet,  cujuscumque    status        2  ^        Paieutin.  ami.  1383,  Rubr. 

aut  conditions  existat;  Decnon  um-  ..  .  ' 

versitatem  seu  communitatem  quam- 


THE    FOURTEENTH    CENTURY 


325 


ness  of  those  who  were  not  fettered  by  the  forms  of  marriage, 
whose  children,  as  Pelayo  asserts,  almost  rivalled  in  number 
those  of  the  laity.1  We  shall  see  hereafter  that  this  state  of 
affairs  continued  until  the  sixteenth  century  was  well  ad- 
vanced. 


1  Et  utinam  continentiam  nunquam 
promisissent,  rnaxirae  Hispani  et  reg- 
nicolse,  in  quibus  provinciis  in  pauco 
maiori  numero  sunt  tilii  olericorum 
quam  laicorum  .  .  .  Ssepe  cum  paro- 
chianis  mulieribus  quse  ad  confes- 
sionem  admittunt,  scelestissime  for- 
nicantur  .  .  .  De  bonis  ecclesise 
pascunt  concubinam  continue  et  lilios, 
et  de  pecunia  ecclesise  emunt  eis  pos- 
sessiones.  Multi  presbyteri  et  alii 
constituti  in  sacris,  maxime  in  His- 


pania,  Asturia  et  Gallicia  et  alibi,  et 
publice  et  aliquoties  per  publicum 
instrumentum  promittunt  et  jurant 
quibusdam,  maxime  nobilibus  muli- 
eribus, numquam  eas  dimittere ;  et 
dant  eis  arras  de  bonis  ecclesise  et 
possessionibus  ecclesise,  et  publice 
eas  ducunt,  cum  consanguineis  et 
amicis  et  solenni  convivio,  acsi  essent 
uxores  legitimse.  —  Alv.  Pelag.  de 
Planctu  Ecclesise  Lib.  ir.  (Calixtus, 
p.  537-8). 


XX. 
GENERAL  LEGISLATION. 

In  a  former  section  we  have  seen  the  efforts  made  by  Ca- 
lixtus  II.  to  enforce  the  received  discipline  of  the  church,  and 
we  have  noted  the  scanty  measure  of  success  which  attended 
his  labors.  He  apparently  himself  recognized  that  they  were 
futile,  and  that  some  action  of  more  decided  character  than 
had  as  yet  been  attempted  was  necessary  to  accomplish  the 
result  so  long  and  so  energetically  sought,  and  so  illusory  to 
its  ardent  pursuers.  On  his  return  to  Italy,  and  his  triumph 
over  his  unfortunate  rival,  the  anti-pope  Martin  Burdino,  he 
summoned,  in  1123,  the  first  general  council  of  the  West,  to 
confirm  the  Concordat  of  Worms,  which  had  just  closed  half  a 
century  of  strife  between  the  papacy  and  the  empire.  Nearly 
a  thousand  prelates  obeyed  his  call,  and  that  august  assembly 
promulgated  a  canon  which  not  only  forbade  matrimony  to 
those  bound  by  vows  and  holy  orders,  but  commanded  that 
if  such  marriages  were  contracted  they  should  be  broken,  and 
the  parties  to  them  subjected  to  due  penance.1 

This  was  a  bold  innovation.  With  the  exception  of  a 
decretal  of  Urban  II.  in  1090,  to  which  little  attention  seems 
to  have  been  paid,  we  have  seen  that,  previous  to  Calixtus, 
while  the  marriage  tie  was  held  incompatible  with  the  ministry 
of  the  altar  and  with  the  enjoyment  of  church  property,  it  yet 
was  respected  and  its  binding  force  was  admitted,  even  to  the 
point  of  rendering  those  who  assumed  it  unfitted  for  their 
sacred  functions.  At  most,  and  as  a  concession  to  a  lax  and 
irreligious  generation,  the  option  was  allowed  of  abandoning 
either  the  wife  or  the  church.  At  Rheims,  Calixtus  had  de- 
prived them  of  this  choice,  and  had  ordered  their  separation 
from  their  wives.     He  now  went  a  step  further,  and  by  the 


1  Presbyteris,diaconibus,subdiaco-  I  monia  ab  hnjusmodi  personisdisjungi, 
rribus  et  monachis  concubinaa  habere,  et  personas  ad  poenitentiam  redigi, 
sen  matrinlonia  contrahere,  penitus  juxta  sacrorum  canonum  diffinitiones 
interdicimus :  contractaquoquematri-   judicaums. — Concil.  Lateran.  I.  c.  21. 


MARRIAGE    NULLIFIED    BY    HOLY    ORDERS.       327 

Lateran  canon  he  declared  the  sacrament  of  marriage  to  be 
less  potent  than  the  religious  vow:  the  engagement  with  the 
church  swallowed  up  and  destroyed  all  other  ties.  This  gave 
the  final  seal  to  the  separation  between  the  clergy  and  the 
laity,  by  declaring  the  priestly  character  to  be  indelible. 
When  once  admitted  to  orders,  he  became  a  being  set  apart 
from  his  fellows,  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God;  and  the 
impassable  gulf  between  him  and  the  laity  bound  him  forever 
to  the  exclusive  interests  of  the  church.  It  is  easy  to  per- 
ceive how  important  an  element  this  irrevocable  nature  of 
sacerdotalism  became  in  establishing  and  consolidating  the 
ecclesiastical  power. 

The  immensity  of  the  change  thus  wrought  in  the  practice, 
if  not  in  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  can  best  be  understood 
by  comparing  the  formal  command  thus  issued  to  the  Chris- 
tian world  with  the  unqualified  condemnation  pronounced  in 
earlier  times  against  those  who  attempted  to  dissolve  marriage 
under  religious  pretexts.1  And  in  all  ages  the  church  has 
regarded  the  chastity  of  the  monastic  orders  as  even  more 
imperative  than  that  of  the  secular  clergy. 

Eevolutions  never  go  backwards.  Perhaps  the  Lateran 
fathers  who  adopted  the  canon  scarcely  realized  its  logical 
conclusions.  If  they  did,  they  at  all  events  shrank  from 
expressing  them  openly  and  fully,  and  left  the  faithful  to  draw 
their  own  deductions  as  to  the  causes  and  consequences  of 
such  an  order.  Time,  however,  familiarized  the  minds  of 
ardent  churchmen  to  the  idea,  and  it  was  seen  that  if  the 
practice  thus  enjoined  was  correct,  doctrine  must  be  made  to 
suit  and  to  justify  it.    To  this  end  an  additional  stimulus  was 


'  Thus  Gregory  the  Great,  in  602  :  I  It  has  suited  the  authorities  of  the 
"Si  enim  dicunt  religionis  causa  con-  :  church  in  recent  times  to  deprive  Ca- 
jugia  debere  dissolvi  sciendum  est  (  lixtus  of  the  credit  of  introducing 
quia  etsi  hoc  lex  humana  concessit,  i  these  rules  and  to  assert  for  them  a 
divina  lex  tamen  prohibuit." — Gregor.  J  much  higher  antiquity.  How  modern 
I.  Lib.  xi.  Epist.  45.  this  theory  is  may  be  seen  from  the 

And  St.  Augustine  :  "  Proinde  qui  !  expression  of  the  learned  Doctor  Juan 
dicunt  taliumnuptias  non  esse  nuptias  !  Bernal  Diaz,  Bishop  of  Calahorra,  in 
sed  potius  adulteria  non  mihi  videntur  his  "Practica  Criminalis  Canonica." 
satis  acute  ac  diligenter  considerare  (Cap.  74,  p.  117,  4th  Ed.,  Venice, 
quid  dicant  .  .  .  et  cum  volant  eas  1560.)  "Calixtus  papa  interdixit 
separatas  reddere  continentise  faciunt  contractum  matrimonii  presbyteris, 
maritos  earum  adulteros  veros  etc." —  diaconibus,  et  subdiaconibus,  et  ab 
De  Bono  Viduit.  c.  10.  j  illis  contracta  debere  disjungi,  etc." 


328  GENERAL    LEGISLATION". 

afforded  by  the  failure  of  the  canon  to  accomplish  the  results 
anticipated  from  it,  for  the  custom  of  sacerdotal  marriage  was 
as  yet  by  no  means  eradicated.  The  council  of  Liege,  held 
by  Innocent  II.  in  1131,  referred  to  in  a  preceding  section, 
and  those  of  Clermont  and  Eheims,  over  which  he  likewise 
presided,  in  1130  and  1131,  show  how  little  had  been  accom- 
plished, and  how  generally  the  clergy  of  Europe  disregarded 
the  restrictions  nominally  imposed  upon  them,  and  the  pun- 
ishments which  they  so  easily  escaped.1  In  the  canons  of 
these  councils  not  only  is  it  observable  that  the  question  of 
marriage  and  celibacy  is  treated  as  though  it  were  a  matter 
now  for  the  first  time  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  clergy, 
but  also  that  the  innovation  attempted  by  the  council  of 
Lateran,  oniy  seven  or  eight  years  previous,  is  prudently 
suppressed  and  passed  over  without  even  an  allusion. 

Innocent,  restored  to  Kome  and  to  power,  was  bolder  than 
when  wandering  through  Europe,  soliciting  the  aid  of  the 
faithful.  Surrounded  by  a  thousand  bishops  at  the  second 
great  council  of  Lateran,  in  1139,  he  no  longer  dreaded  to 
offend  the  susceptibilities  of  the  clergy,  and  he  proceeded  to 
justify  the  canon  of  1123  by  creating  a  doctrine  to  suit  the 
practice  there  enjoined.  After  repeating  the  canons  of  Cler- 
mont and  Eheims,  he  unhesitatingly  pronounced  that  a  union 
contracted  in  opposition  to  the  rule  of  the  church  was  not  a 
marriage.2  He  draws  no  argument  from  the  conflict  of  sacra- 
ments assumed  to  be  incompatible ;  a  simple  vow  dissolves 


1  Deorevimus  ut  ii  qui  a  subdiaco-  |  2  Ut  autem  lex  continentia?  et  Deo 
natu  et  supra  uxores  duxerint,  aut '  placens  mnnditia  in  ecclesiasticis  per- 
concubinas  habuerint,  officio  atque  sonis  et  sacris  ordinibus  dilatetur, 
beneficio  ecclesiastioo  careant. — Con-  statuimus  quatenus  episeopi,  presby- 
cil.  Claromont.  aim.  1130,  can.  4.         j  teri,    diaconi,    subdiaconi,    regulares 

This  is  repeated  verbatim  in  the  ;  canonici  et  rnonachi  atque  conversi 
council  of  Rheims  in  1131,  canon  4.     !  professi,  qui  sanctum  transgredientes 

Concerning  the  latter  a  contempo-  propositum  uxores  sibi  copulare  prse- 
rary  observes:  "  Placuit  etiam  domino  sumpserint,  separentur.  Hujusmodi 
apostolico  et  toti  concilio,  ne  quis  an-  i  namque  copulationem,  quam  contra 
diat  missam  presbyteri  habentis  con-  ecclesiasticam  regulam  constat  esse 
cubinam  vel  uxoreui.  Assensu  etiam  contractam,  matrimonium  non  esse 
omnium  firmatum  est  ut  clerici  omnes  censemus.  Qui  etiam  ab  invicem  sepa- 
a  subdiaconoet  supra  continentes  sint,  rati,  pro  tantis  excessibus  condignam 
et  qui  non  fnerint  continentes,  depo-  poenitentiam  agant. — Concil.  Lateran. 
nantur." — Udalr.  Babenb.  Cod.  Lib.  II.  anu.  1139,  c.  7. 
n.  c.  1.  I 


HESITATION    IN    ADMITTING    THE    NEW    RULE.      329 

the  sacrament  of  marriage,  and  renders  it  null  and  void — or 
rather  destroys  its  efficacy  and  anticipates  its  existence. 

The  abounding  wickedness  of  a  perverse  generation  caused 
this  decree  of  the  loftiest  Christian  tribunal  to  fall  still-born 
and  abortive  as  its  forerunners  had  done.1  The  church,  how- 
ever, was  irrevocably  committed  to  the  new  doctrine  and  to 
all  its  consequences.  When  Eugenius  III.  was  driven  out  of 
Eome  by  Arnold  of  Brescia,  he  presided,  in  1148,  over  a 
council  held  at  Eheims,  where  eleven  hundred  bishops  and 
abbots  from  Northern  and  Western  Europe  assembled  to  do 
honor  to  the  persecuted  representative  of  St.  Peter,  and  to 
condemn  the  teachings  of  Gilbert  de  la  Porree.  From  this 
great  assembly  he  procured  the  confirmation  of  the  new 
dogma  by  their  adoption  of  the  Lateran  canon ;  while  the 
repetition  of  that  of  Clermont  and  Eheims  (of  1180  and  1131) 
shows  that  the  evil  which  it  was  intended  to  repress  still 
existed  in  full  force.2  The  vague  assertion  of  Eugenius  that 
he  was  but  following  in  the  footsteps  of  the  holy  fathers,  and 
a  special  reference  to  Innocent  II.  as  his  authority,  render  it 
probable  that  the  members  of  the  council  demurred  in  com- 
mitting themselves  to  the  new  dogma,  and  that  it  was  only 
by  showing  that  the  matter  was  already  decided  under  the  irre- 
fragable authority  of  a  general  council  that  the  consent  of  the 
Trans-alpine  churches  was  obtained. 

Even  in  Eome  itself  the  point  was  still  disputed.  At  that 
very  time  Gratian,  the  greatest  canonist  of  the  age,  was  en- 
gaged in  the  compilation  of  his  "  Concordia  discordantium 
Canonum,"  a  work  undertaken  at  the  request  of  the  papal 
authorities  to  restore  to  the  canon  law  the  pre-eminence 
which  it  was  fast  losing  in  consequence  of  the  recently  revived 
study  of  the  Justinian  jurisprudence.  Published  in  1151 
under  the  auspices  of  Eugenius  himself,  and  presented  to  the 
world  as  the  authoritative  exposition  of  the  laws  and  disci- 
pline of  the  church,  it  was  everywhere  received  with  accla- 
mation,  and  has   remained   to   this   day  the   foundation    of 


1  Sed  nimis  abundans  per  univer-  |  2  Concil.  Remens.  ami.  1148,  can. 
sumorbeinnequitiaterrigenarumcorda  :  3,8.  "Sanctorum  patrum  et  prsedeces- 
contra  ecolesiastica  scita  obduravit. —  ;  son's  nostri  Papae  Innocent! i  vestigia 
Orderic.  Vital.  P.  m.  Lib.   xiii.  c.  20.  '  inbserentes,  statuintus  quatemis  epis- 

i  copi,  presbyteri,  diaconi,  etc." 


330  GENERAL    LEGISLATION. 

canonical  jurisprudence.  Yet  Gratian  himself,  in  this  work 
without  appeal,  distinctly  declares  his  opposition  to  the 
doctrine  of  Innocent  and  Eugenius.  asserting  that  a  deacon 
can  lawfully  marry  if  he  chooses  to  abandon  the  ministry, 
and  that  the  sacrament  of  marriage  is  so  potent  that  no  ante- 
cedent vow  can  render  it  void.1 

The  new  law  was  long  in  winning  its  way  to  general  re- 
spect, nor  can  it  be  a  subject  of  wonder  if  those  who  disre- 
garded the  acknowledged  canons  of  the  church  by  marrying 
in  orders,  or  by  permitting  such  marriages  in  those  under 
their  charge,  should  neglect  a  rule  of  modem  origin  and  of 
more  than  doubtful  propriety.  The  church,  however,  was 
committed  to  it,  and  moreover  could  see  in  its  eventual 
recognition  a  more  effectual  means  of  accomplishing  the  long 
desired  object  than  in  any  expedient  previously  tried.  By 
destroying  all  such  marriages,  pronouncing  them  null  and 
void,  inflicting  an  ineffaceable  stigma  on  wife  and  offspring, 
subjecting  the  woman  to  the  certainty  of  being  cast  off  with- 
out resource  and  without  option  on  the  part  of  the  husband, 
the  position  of  the  wife  of  an  ecclesiastic  would  become  most 
unenviable ;  her  kindred  would  prevent  her  from  exposing 
herself  to  such  calamities,  and  no  priest  could  succeed  in 
finding  a  consort  above  the  lowest  class,  whose  union  with 
him  would  expose  him  to  the  contempt  of  his  flock. 

How  slender  was  the  immediate  result  of  these  efforts, 
however,  is  manifested  by  the  allusions  of  Geroch,  Provost  of 
Eeichersperg,  who,  writing  about  the  middle  of  the  century, 
complains  that  any  one  who  would  shun  intercourse  with 
Nicolitan  and  simoniacal  heretics  must  quit  the  world,  for  it 
was  full  of  them,  and  he  maintains  the  propriety  of  calling 
them  heretics  because  they  openly  defended  and  justified  their 
evil  courses.2     Indeed,  so  shamelessly  were  their  transgres- 


1  Si  vero  diaconus  a  ministerio  ces- 
sare  voluerit,  et  contracto  matrimonio 
licite  potest  uti.  Nam  etsi  in  ordina- 
tione  sua  castitatis  votum  obtulerit, 
tamen  tanta  est  vis  in  sacramento 
conjugii,  quod  nee  ex  violatione  voti 
potest  dissolvi  ipsum  conjugium. — 
Comment,  in  Can.  i.  Dist.  xxvn. 

The   introduction  of  this   doctrine  [ 


into  the  church  has  given  rise  to  some 
controversy.  In  the  Encyclicals  of 
Aug.  22,  1851,  and  Dec.  8,  1864,  Pius 
iX.  has  condemned  the  error  of  attri- 
buting it  to  Boniface  VIII. 

2  Quia  si  etiam  in  talibus  interdice- 
rentur,  oportuerat  nos  exire  de  hoc 
mundo  Nicolaitis  et  Simoniacis  pleno. 


ALEXANDER    III.  331 

sions  displayed,  that  the  faithful  were  sometimes  scandalized 
by  the  sight  of  the  priests'  wives  assisting  their  husbands  in 
the  ministry  of  the  altar;1  while  conventual  discipline  had 
sunk  so  low  that  nuns  were  in  the  habit  of  deferring  their 
formal  vows  until  the  lassitude  of  old  age  should  render  the 
restraints  thereby  assumed  easy  to  be  endured,2  and  canons 
led  a  life  which  was  only  distinguishable  from  that  of  the 
laity  by  its  shamelessness.3  Nor  was  this  confined  to  Ger- 
many. In  France,  Hugh,  Archbishop  of  Kouen,  complains 
that  those  who  married  in  orders  openly  defended  their  evil 
practices  and  quoted  Scripture  to  sustain  themselves.4  In 
England  and  Spain,  as  we  have  seen,  the  state  of  discipline 
was  even  worse. 

The  long  pontificate  of  Alexander  III.,  extending  from 
1159  to  1181,  was  absorbed  for  the  most  part  by  his  deadly 
strife  with  Frederic  Barbarossa.  Yet,  even  before  he  was 
released  from  that  ever  present  danger,  he  found  leisure  to 
urge  the  cause  of  sacerdotal  celibacy ;  and  after  the  humilia- 
tion of  his  mortal  enemy  he  devoted  himself  to  it  with  a  zeal 


.  .  Quis  altaris  ministroa   fornicantes  !  the  nuns  rebelled  against  the  canon 

et   interdicta   sibi  officia   usurpantes,  (Concil.  Remens.  aim.  1148,  can.  iv.) 

talemque  praesumptionem  contra  Sedis  '  confining    them     to    their     convents 

Apostoljcae  doctrinam  pertinaciter  de-  under  threat  of  deprivation  of  Cbris- 

fendentes,    dubitet    hsereticos? — Ger-  tian  sepulture. 

hohi    Tract,    adv.    Siinoniac.    c.    2. —  ,  T1  . ,               .    .       .,  TT    ,            ,  ... 

. ,       .  ,,               ii  in          a    j  ct    t>  Ibid.  cap.  xlvi. — "  Unde  apud  lllos 

About  the  year  1140,  we  find  St.  Ber-  .    .               .  F                ,               F„     ,. 

,     ,^   /.      OAON  '       ...         .       ,,  inter  sanctum  et  profannm  nulla  dis- 

nard     (Epist.    203)     writing    to    the  .      ..          .    .    .       F         ,    .         ,    ,   . 

,  .  ,              -,     i              c  rp  «                 •  tantia    est,  inter  sacerdotes  et  laicos 

bishop  and   clergy   of  I reves,  urging  ,.       ,. '       ..          .  .  .    .      .           ,. 

,,         tii       t     *i         e         4.-         e  modica  discretio ;   nisi  forte  in  eo  dis- 

them  to  labor  lor  the  reformation  ot  a  ,                ,    ,     .  .     .       ,    .   .     , 

.    ,       ,     ,                ,  ,,     .       ,         ,  cernantur,  quod  clerici  plus  laicis  de- 

married  sub-deacon  of  their  church,  .    \,1                      * 

,  .  ,      i         ,-,     .  viant,  etc. 

in   terms  which  show  that  no  severe  ' 

application  of  the  canons  was  to  be  4  Hujusmodi  lapsos  pro  voto  fracto 

expected.  mater  ecclesia  condemnat,  pontificalis 

,  A         ,          .       ,   .  .           .       .....  auctoritas    communione    privat.     Ex 

1  Quando  enim  laici  omnino  lllite-  ...          ,      .        ..               r      .    .  ,  _ 
..      .,      -.i                 ....           ...  his  unpudenter  aliqui  proruunt  et  hae- 

rati  vident  huiusmodi  clericos  altan  ..       r             ....    ^  .   r        .          . 

,               ...               -u       •   *     i  reticos  pro  se  li  tic  antes  asciscunt,  qui 

audenter  ministrare,  quibus  interdum  .  .     . r      .   ,       s,          ,,           .          1. 

...        ...          '^       .  .  nobis  Apostolum  tumultuosa  loquaci- 

sicmimstrantibus  .  .  .  assistunteorum  ,    .           \         .      ,         /u             «   ., 

-      .         .                  ci-      r>  i    i      •        •  tate   pro  rerun  t,  etc.  —  (Hugon.   Kotho- 

ferainae  tanquam  fibre  Babyloms  mi-  y            „ '      .    T .,       &               N 

,-,,,.-,.         ..      r      .,     .  ,  mag.  contra  IL-eret.  Lib.  m.  cap.  v.) — 

seise. — Grerhohi    Exposit.    m    rsalm.  „   °,      .                                 ,        \,        , , 

,.             r  Hugh  gives  us  in  a  new  form  the  old 

lxiv.  cap.  xhx.  !      ,=  ,°.,                ,       ., 

r  calculation    as    to    the    comparative 

2  Gerhohi  Exposit.  in  Psalm,  lxiv.  merits  of  virginity,  continence,  and 
c.  xxxv.  An  allusion  in  this  passage  marriage. — "  Noil  centesimo  honore 
to  Eugenius  III.  and  the  council  of  cum  virginibus  gloriatur,  non  sexage- 
Rheims  shows  that  it  was  written  be-  sima  conjjnentiae  palma  lsetatur,  sed 
tween  1148  and  1153.     It  seems  that  t'ricesimo  conjugii  labore  fatigatur." 


332  GENERAL    LEGISLATION. 

which  earned  for  him  among  his  contemporaries  the  credit  of 
establishing  its  observance.1  He  who,  as  the  legate  Eoland, 
had  nearly  paid,  nncler  the  avenging  sword  of  Otho  of  Wit- 
telsbach,  the  forfeit  of  his  life  for  his  rnde  boldness  at  the 
imperial  court,  was  little  likely  to  abate  one  jot  of  the  claims 
which  the  church  asserted  on  the  obedience  of  layman  and 
clerk;  and  he  recognized  too  fully  the  potency  of  the  canons 
of  Lateran  and  Eheims  not  to  insist  upon  their  observance. 
TJie  Yery  necessity  under  which  he  found  himself,  however, 
of  repeating  those  canons  shows  how  utterly  neglected  they 
had  beenj  and  how  successfully  the  clergy  had  thus  far  re- 
sisted their  reception  and  acknowledgment.  Thus  when,  in 
1163,  he  held  the  council  of  Tours,  he  was  obliged  to  content 
himself  with  a  canon  which  allowed  three  warnings  to  those 
who  publicly  kept  concubines,  and  it  was  only  after  neglect 
of  these  warnings  that  they  were  threatened  with  deprivation 
of  functions  and  benefice;2  and  wrhen,  in  1172,  his  legates 
presided  over  the  council  of  Avranches,  which  absolved 
Henry  II.  for  the  murder  of  A'Becket,  the  Norman  clergy 
were  emphatically  reminded  that  those  who  married  in  holy 
orders  mast  put  away  their  wives,  and  this  in  terms  which 
indicate  that  the  rule  had  not  been  previously  obeyed.3  Yet 
notwithstanding  this  formal  declaration,  only  a  few  years 
later  we  find  the  Archbishop  of  Rheims  applying  to  him  for 
counsel  in  the  case  of  a  deacon  who  had  committed  matri- 
mony, to  which  Alexander  of  course  replied  that  the  mar- 
riage was  no  marriage,  and  that  the  offending  ecclesiastic 
must  be  separated  from  the  woman,  and  undergo  due 
penance.4  The  persistence  of  the  pope,  and  the  necessity  of 
his  urgency,  are  farther  shown  by  sundry  epistles  to  various 
English  bishops,  in  which  the  rule  is  enunciated  as  absolute 


1  Et  constituit  ut  nullus  in  sacris  ;  relinquant. — Concil.  Abrjncens.  aim. 
ordinibus  habeat  uxorem  vel  concu-  j  1172,  c.  1.  I  give  this  on  the  author 
binam. — Chron.  S.  iEgid.  in  Brunswig.  |  ity  of  the  Abate  Zaccaria  (Nuova  (rius- 

tificazione  del  Celibato  Sacro,  p.  120); 


2  Concil.  Turon.  aim.  1163,  can.  4! 
(MS.   St.  Michael,  ap.  Harduin.  Tom 
VI.  P.  ii.  p.  1600). 


;  there  is  no  such  canon  among  those 
attributed  to  the  council  by  Hardouin 
(T.  VI.  P.  ii.  p.  1634). 
3  Qu^autemasubdiaconatuvelsu-i      4  post    ^^    Lateran.    p.    XVIII. 


pra      ad    inatrimonia     convolaverint, 
mulieres  etiam  in  vitas   et  renitentes 


c.  1: 


EXCEPTIONS    IN    NULLIFYING    MARRIAGE.       333 

and  unvarying;1  and  he  takes  occasion  to  stigmatize  such 
marriages  with  the  most  degrading  epithet,  when  he  gra- 
ciously pardons  those  concerned,  and  permits  their  restitu- 
tion after  a  long  course  of  penitence,  on  their  giving  evidence 
of  a  reformed  life.2 

Yet  even  Alexander  was  forced  to  abate  somewhat  of  his 
stern  determination,  in  consideration  of  the  incorrigible  per- 
versity of  the  time,  though  he  seems  not  to  have  remarked 
that  he  abandoned  the  principle  by  admitting  exceptions, 
and  that  the  reasons  assigned  in  such  individual  cases  might, 
with  equal  cogency,  be  applied  to  the  total  withdrawal  of  the 
rule.  When  the  Calabrian  bishops  informed  him  that  clerks 
in  holy  orders  throughout  their  dioceses  committed  matri- 
mony, he  ordered  that  priests  and  deacons  should  be  irrevo- 
cably separated  from  their  wives;  but,  in  the  case  of  sub- 
deacons  of  doubtful  morals,  he  instructed  the  prelates  that 
they  should  tacitly  connive  at  the  irregularity,  lest  in  place 
of  one  woman,  many  should  be  abused,  and  a  greater  evil  be 
incurred,  in  the  endeavor  to  avoid  a  less.3  This  worldly 
wisdom  also  dictated  his  orders  to  the  Bishop  of  Exeter,  in 
whose  diocese  subdeacons  were  in  the  habit  of  openly  mar- 
rying. He  directs  an  examination  into  the  lives  and  charac- 
ters of  the  offenders;  those  whose  regular  habits  and  staid 
morality  afford  fair  expectation  of  their  chastity  in  celibacy, 
are  to  be  forcibly  separated  from  their  wives ;  Avhile  those 
whose  disorderly  character  renders  probable  their  general 
licentiousness  if  condemned  to  a  single  life,  are  not  to  be 
disturbed — taking  care,  however,  that  they  do  not  minister 
at  the  altar,  or  receive  ecclesiastical  benefices.4 


1  Post  Concil.  Lateran.  P.  zvill.  lare  poteris  cum  suis  mulieribus  re- 
c.  2,  0'.  manere,  quia  tolerandum  est  malum 

2  Sane  sacerdotes  illi,  qui  nuptias  ut  pejora  vitentur.— Post  Concil.  La- 
contrahunt,  qiue  non  nuptiae  sed  con-    teran.   P.  xviii.  c.  4. 

tubernia  sunt  potius  nuncupanda,  j  i  post  Concil.  Lateran.  P.  xvm. 
post  longam  poenitentiam  et  vitam  c.  I3._ln  a  decretal  addressed  to  the 
laudabilem  continentes,  officio  suo  '•  i)ean  anci  Chapter  of  Lincoln,  Alexan- 
restitui  poterunt,  et  ex  indulgentia  der  grants  permission  of  marriage  to 
sui  episcopi  ejus  executionem  habere.  |  a  certain  subdeacon,  and  forbids  in- 
— Can.  4  Extra,  Tit.  iii.  Lib.  ill.  j  terference  with  such  legitimate  mar- 

3  Si  vero  subdiaconi  contraxerint  j  riage,  giving  as  a  reason  that  the  sub- 
matrimonium,  eos  dummodo  ante  i  diaconate  of  the  person  referred  to 
tales  fuerint,  quod  timendum  sit  ne  !  carried  with  it  no  preferment. — Ibid, 
pro  una  pluribus  abutantur,  dissimu-  |  c.  14. 


3f34  GENERAL    LEGISLATION. 

Alexander  adopted  the  principle  that  a  simple  vow  of  chas- 
tity did  not  prevent  marriage  or  render  it  null,  but  that  a 
formal  vow,  or  the  reception  of  orders,  created  a  dissolution 
of  marriage,  or  a  total  inability  to  enter  into  it;1  but  Celes- 
tin  III.  carried  the  principle  still  farther,  and  decreed  that  a 
simple  vow,  while  it  did  not  dissolve  an  existing  connection, 
was  sufficient  to  prevent  a  future  one.2 

Alexander  did  not  confine  himself  to  this  portion  of  the 
question,  but  with  ceaseless  activity  labored  to  enforce  the 
observance  of  celibacy  in  general,  and  to  repress  the  immo- 
rality which  disgraced  the  church  throughout  Christendom 
— immorality  which  led  Alain  de  l'lsle,  the  "  Universal 
Doctor,"  to  characterize  the  ecclesiastics  of  his  time  as 
being  old  men  in  their  inefficiency  and  young  men  in  their 
unbridled  passions.3  Alexander's  efforts  were  particularly 
directed  to  put  an  end  to  the  practice  of  hereditary  priest- 
hood, and  its  constant  consequence,  hereditary  benefices.  If 
I  have  made  little  allusion  to  this  subject  during  the  century 
under  consideration,  it  is  not  that  the  church  had  relaxed 
her  exertions  to  place  some  limit  on  this  apparently  incurable 


Post  Concil.  Lateran.  P.  VI.  c.  9.    i  fectu,  pueri  adulterini  caloris  effectu, 

TT   .  .       ,        .  ,.,  I  etc. — Alani  ab  Insulis  Lib.  Poeniten- 

votum    simplex  impedit  sponsa-      .   ,. 

How  little  progress  practically  re- 


lia  de  futuro,  non  autem  dirimit  ma- 


trimonmm  sequens ;  secus  m  voto  ;  ,.  .  . 
;olenni.-Can.6ExtraLib.iv.Tit.vi.  *ulted  f™m  Alexander's  labors,  and 
The  practical  rule  deduced  by  a  Il0+W  ?"dleSS  was  }ie  Bt™e*l«  P.e[- 
*»™i  i,™™,  !«  fu  i«ffar  v,,if  nf  petually  recurring  throughout  Christ- 
endom, is  well  illustrated  in  a  privi- 
lege addressed  by  his  successor  Lu- 


shrewd  lawyer  in  the  latter  half  of 
the  thirteenth  century  from  this  vary- 
ing legislation  is,  "  Note  deus  relies  ; 

5    ™       ,  '  ,,  ..     ,.  '  cms  III.  to  Maurice  de  bully,  Bishop 

que    simple    vou    et    sollempnie    lie      -  „     .       ,       ...  nci       «r> 

^  t   ^    -n.  +     •       i  or  Paris,  about  the  year  llbl. — "  Re- 

maeme  quant  a   Deu  ;  et  simple  vou  .    .  '  ,.         J 

*  ,      ^  •  .    .,         . .  i  latum  est   nobis  ex  parte  tua,  quos- 

empeche  a  marier,  mes  ll  ue  tost  pas  .  ...  .    .  1    ,.        .  '  H    ,. 

*  .      .   -  .        .'.  j    i  dam  presbiteros  in  tua  diocesi  consti- 

ce  qui  est  let ;   et  note  que  vou,  de  la  ,    ,     \   c      .     ,   ,  •, 

?        ,        .         i««'x  •  j  tutos  lnianna  laborare.quod  non  eru- 

nature  de  soi,  ne  depitce  pas  manage,  ,  .   ,   ..  1 1-  i  • 

,     .   ,     '       ...  *  .       j,     ,.      ,;  bescant  detmere  publice  concubinas. 

mes  c  est  de  constitucion  d'yglise.   —  .,  *  mi  •  * 


(Livres  de  Jostice  et  de  Plet,  Li  v.  x. 


Cum    autem    illos    queris    corrlgere, 


\  ■     »  a  \     mi  ■-  ».  ri       ■       ii     i  obstaculum    appellationis    opponunt, 

chap.  vi.   §  6.)     This  is  likewise  the       .  .         yy  ..  „•*     * 

r,      .  u   j   i      rn  »      •    !  ut  canonicam    correctionem    evitent, 

conclusion  reached  by  Ihomas  Aqui-         .  ...      .  ' 

cs  rni      i    a  rv        ..  et  tamen  a  vitio  et  prava  consuetu- 

nas,  bumm.  Iheol.  bupp.  Qusest.  lih.  I  ,.  ,      ,  ,,,.>,.      .    ,        -^ 

dme  non  recedunt.      (Chartular.  Lc- 

cles.  Paris.  I.  35.)  In  1189  we  find  a 
council  at  Rouen  forbidding  the  clergy 
to  keep  "focarise,"  without  threaten- 
ing any  punishment,  as  though  the 
prohibition  were  a  novelty. — Concil. 
Rotomag.  ami.  1180,  can.  iv. 


Art.  i.  ii. 

3  bacerdotes  nostri  temporis  senes 
sunt  et  pueri.  .  .  .  benes,  quidem, 
morum  desipientia,  pueri  lascivia; 
senes  animi  imbecillitate,  pueri  aninii 
instabilitate  ;  senes  divini  caloris  de- 


CONFLICT    OF    RULES    AND    EXCEPTIONS.       335 

disorder,  or  that  the  passive  resistance  to  her  efforts  had 
been  less  successful  than  we  have  seen  it  on  previous  occa- 
sions. The  perpetual  injunctions  of  Alexander  show  at  once 
the  universality  of  the  vice,  and  the  determination  of  the 
pontiff  to  eradicate  it.  At  the  same  time  it  became  a  fre- 
quent, and  no  doubt  a  profitable  portion  of  the  duties  of  the 
papal  chancery,  to  grant  special  dispensations  when  those  who 
held  such  preferment,  or  who  desired  to  retain  their  wives, 
underwent  the  dangers  and  expense  of  a  journey  to  Rome, 
and  were  rewarded  for  their  confidence  in  the  benignity  of 
the  Holy  Father  by  a  rescript  to  their  bishops,  commanding 
their  reinstatement  in  the  benefices  from  which  they  had 
been  ejected.1  The  power  to  grant  such  dispensations  was 
shrewdly  reserved  as  the  exclusive  privilege  of  the  papal 
court  ;2  and  a  high  churchman  of  the  period  assures  us  that 
there  was  no  difficulty  in  obtaining  them.3  It  need  not, 
therefore,  surprise  us  that  Alexander's  successor,  Lucius  III., 
found  the  hereditary  transmission  of  the  priestly  office  claimed 
as  an  absolute  right.4 

This  conflicting  legislation,  at  times  enforced,  and  at  times 
dispensed  with  by  the  supreme  power,  led  to  innumerable 
complications  and  endless  perplexity  in  private  life.  In- 
deed, a  large  portion  of  the  canons  are  founded  on  responses 
given  by  the  popes  to  settle  cases  of  peculiar  difficulty  arising 
from  ignorance  or  neglect  of  the  discipline  enjoined,  and 
many  of  these  reveal  extreme  hardship  inflicted  on  those  who 
could  be  convicted  of  no  intentional  guilt.  Perhaps  the  most 
noteworthy  instance  of  the  troubles  caused  by  the  new  regu- 
lations was  that  of  Bossaert  d'Avesnes,  which  resulted  in  a 
desperate  war  to  determine  the  possession  of  the  rich  pro- 
vinces of  Flanders  and  Hainault.    As  it  illustrates  the  doubts 


1  Post.    Concil.    Lateran.     P.    xix.  I  Girald.    Cambrens.    Gemm.     Eccles. 


c.   1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  9,  10.  —Can.  10, 
11,  12,  14,  Extra,  Lib.  i.  Tit.  xvii. 

1  Can.     17,  18,  Extra,    Lib.   i.  Tit. 
xvii. 

Quia   de    talibus   absque  difficul- 


Dist.  ii.  cap.  v. 

4  Consuetudinem  introduetam  quod 
filii  eorum  qui  vestras  ecclesias  tenue- 
ruut.   .   .   .   patrihus    .   .   .    consecuti, 
sub    reprebensibili  collusione  volunt 
^^.i*   v»~    ^w.^o  „va^„v  «.-.««^  .  .  ecciesjas  jure  successions   ba- 

tate  curia  Kouiana  dispensat,  quia  et    J  T      ..     ^.^     TIr    „   .   .     00 

,         ,  ,.         .,  -l      j  j-    •      bere,  etc. — Lucn.   PP.   III.  Epist.   88. 

de  subdiaconibus  quibusdam  audivi-  ' !     ~        .,      „   ,  Hon 

mus  adomiuo  Papadispensatum.-!-Cf\ConciL    **««*     aj>»-    »*89, 


336  GENERAL    LEGISLATION. 

which  still  environed  these  particular  points,  and  the  con- 
flicting decisions  to  which  they  were  liable,  even  from  the 
infallibility  of  successive  popes,  it  may  be  worth  briefly 
sketching  here. 

When  Baldwin  of  Flanders,  Emperor  of  Constantinople, 
died  in  1206,  his  eldest  daughter  Jane  succeeded  to  his  terri- 
tories of  Flanders  and  Hainault,  ivhile  his  second  child, 
Margaret,  was  placed  under  the  guardianship  of  Bossaert 
d'Avesnes.  Bossaert  was  a  relative  of  her  mother,  Mary  of 
Champagne,  and  though  he  held  the  comparatively  insignifi- 
cant position  of  chantre  of  Tournay,  he  was  yet  a  man  of  great 
repute  and  influence.  With  the  assent  and  approbation  of  the 
estates  of  Flanders,  Margaret  and  Bossaert  were  married,  the 
issue  of  the  union  being  three  sons.  Whether  the  fact  of  his 
having  received  the  subdiaconate  was  publicly  known  or  not 
is  somewhat  doubtful ;  but  he  seems  at  length  to  have  been 
awakened  to  a  sense  of  his  uncertain  position,  when  he  went  to 
Rome  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  dispensation  and  legiti- 
mating his  children.  Innocent  III.  not  only  refused  the 
application,  but  commanded  him  to  restore  Margaret  to  her 
relatives  and  to  do  penance  by  a  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy 
Land.  Disregarding  these  injunctions,  he  lived  openly  with 
his  wife  after  his  return  and  was  excommunicated  in  conse- 
quence. At  length  Margaret  left  him  and  married  Guillaume 
de  Dampierre,  while  Bossaert  was  assassinated  during  a  second 
visit  to  Rome,  where  he  was  seeking  reconciliation  to  the 
church.  When  at  last,  in  1244,  the  Countess  Jane  closed  her 
long  and  weary  career  by  assuming  the  veil  at  Marquette, 
without  leaving  heirs,  the  children  of  Margaret  by  both  marri- 
ages claimed  the  succession,  and  Margaret  favored  the  younger, 
asserting,  without  scruple,  that  her  elder  sons  were  illegiti- 
mate. The  difficult  question  was  referred  to  St.  Louis  for 
arbitration,  and  in  1247  the  good  king  assigned  Flanders  to 
(rui  de  Dampierre  and  Hainault  to  Jean  d'Avesnes,  thus  recog- 
nizing both  marriages  as  legitimate.  This,  of  course,  satisfied 
neither  party.  Innocent  IV.  was  appealed  to,  and  in  1248  he 
sent  commissioners  to  investigate  the  knotty  affair.  They 
reported  that  the  marriage  of  Bossaert  had  been  contracted 
in  the  face  of  all  Flanders,  and  that  the  d'Avesnes  were  legiti- 


BOSSAERT   D   AVESNES. 


337 


mate,  which  judgment  was  confirmed  by  Innocent  himself  in 
1252.  Thus  fortified,  Jean  d'Avesnes  resisted  the  proposed 
partition,  and  a  bloody  civil  war  arose.  The  victory  of 
Vacheren  placed  the  Dampierre  in  the  hands  of  their  half 
brothers,  and  promised  to  be  decisive,  until  Margaret  called 
in  Charles  de  Yalois,  bribing  him  with  the  offer  of  Hainault 
to  complete  the  disinheriting  of  her  first-born.  The  war  con- 
tinued until  Louis,  returning  from  the  East  in  1255,  compelled 
the  combatants  to  lay  down  their  arms,  and  to  abide  by  his 
arbitration.1 


Yet  even  the  resolute  spirit  of  Alexander  III.,  dismayed  at 
the  arduous  nature  of  the  struggle,  or  appalled  at  the  ineradi- 
cable vices  which  defied  even  papal  authority,  at  times  shrank 
from  the  contest  and  was  ready  to  abandon  the  principle.  If 
we  may  believe  Giraldus  Cambrensis,  who,  as  a  contemporary 
intimately  connected  with  the  highest  ecclesiastical  authorities 
in  England,  was  not  likely  to  be  mistaken,  and  whose  long 
sojourn  at  the  court  of  Innocent  III.  would  have  afforded  him 
ample  opportunities  of  correcting  a  misstatement,  Alexander 
had  once  resolved  to  introduce  the  discipline  of  the  Greek 
church  in  Western  Europe,  permitting  single  marriages  with 
virgins.  To  this  he  had  obtained  the  assent  of  his  whole  court, 
except  his  chancellor  Albert,  who  was  afterwards  pope  under 
the  name  of  Gregory  VIII.  The  resistance  of  this  dignitary 
was  so  powerful  as  to  cause  the  abandonment  of  the  project.2 
Alexander,  indeed,  was  not  alone  in  this  conviction.   Giraldus 


1  D'Oudegherst,  Annales  de  Flandre, 
chap.  era. — Baluz.  et  Mansi  T.  i. — 
Miraei  Diplom.  Lib.  i.  c.  88. — Grandes 
Ckroniques,  T.  IV.  pp.  339-42. 

2  In  presbyteris  autem  nullum  om- 
nino  remedium,  nulla  dispensatio 
locum  habet,  nisi  forte  per  generale 
concilium,  a  summo  pontifice  et  car- 
dinalibus,  consensu  quoque  totius 
ecclesise  de  desponsandis  unicis  et 
virginibus  more  Grsecorum  statuere- 
tur.  Sicut  de  Alexandro  tertio  dicitur, 
quod  id  statuere  propter  pericula, 
quae  in  occidentali  ecclesia  ex  voti 
illius  emissione  cognoverat  tanta, 
proculdubio    proposuerat   et  firmiter 

22 


animo  decreverat ;  tota  ecclesia  Ro- 
mana  in  hoc  consentiente  praeter 
abbatem  cancellarium,  qui  vir  erat 
singulariquadam  austeritate  notabilis, 
qui  et  postmodum  tamen  tertius  ab 
Alexandro  est  papa  creatus  et  Greg- 
orius  quartus  vocatus.  Ob  cujus 
dissensum  solius  tarn  utile  tanti  patris 
tamque  discreti  propositum,  peucatis 
exigentibus,  non  fuit  effectui  manci- 
patum. — Girald.  Cambrens.  Gemm. 
Eccles.  Div.  n.  cap.  vi. 

Tbe  "Gemma"  was  the  favorite 
work  of  its  author,  who  relates  with 
pride  the  approbation  specially  be- 
stowed upon  it  by  Innocent  III. 


338  GENERAL    LEGISLATION. 

himself  was  fully  convinced  that  such  a  change  would  be 
most  useful  to  the  church,  though  as  archdeacon  of  St.  David's 
he  had  displayed  his  zeal  for  the  enforcement  of  the  canon  by 
measures  too  energetic  for  the  degeneracy  of  the  age,  and 
though  he  occupies,  in  his  "  Gemma  Ecclesiastica,"  twenty-one 
chapters  with  an  exhortation  to  his  clergy  to  abandon  their 
evil  courses.1  Men  of  high  character  did  not  hesitate  to  take 
even  stronger  ground  against  the  rule.  The  celebrated  Peter 
Comestor,  whose  orthodoxy  is  unquestioned,  taught  publicly 
in  his  lectures  that  the  devil  had  never  inflicted  so  severe  a  blow 
on  the  church  as  in  procuring  the  adoption  of  celibacy.2 

These  were  but  individual  opinions.  The  policy  of  the 
church  remained  unaltered,  and  Alexander's  successors  emu- 
lated his  example  in  endeavoring  to  enforce  the  canons. 
Clement  III.  took  advantage  of  the  profound  impression 
which  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Saladin  (Oct.  1187)  pro- 
duced on  all  Europe,  when  the  fall  of  the  Latin  kingdom  was 
attributed  to  the  sins  of  Christendom.  He  preached  a  general 
reformation.  Abstinence  from  meat  on  Wednesdays  and  Satur- 
days for  five  years,  and  various  other  kinds  of  mortification 
were  enjoined  on  all  to  propitiate  a  justly  offended  Deity,  but 
the  clergy  were  the  objects  of  special  reproof.  Their  extreme 
laxity  of  morals,  their  neglect  of  the  dress  of  their  order, 
their  worldly  ambition  and  pursuits,  drinking,  gambling,  and 
flocking  to  tournaments,  and  the  unclerical  deportment  which 
left  little  difference  between  them  and  the  laity,  were  some  of 
the  accusations  brought  against  them.  To  their  incontinence, 
however,  was  chiefly  attributed  the  wrath  of  God,  besides 
the  measureless  scandals  to  which  their  conduct  exposed  the 
church,  and  they  were  commanded  to  remove  all  suspected 


1  Yet   so   hopeless   was   this   well-  noctihus    priusquam    corpus    Christi 

intentioned  attempt,  that  Giraldus  is  consecrare  prsesumat  mundum    .    .   . 

willing  to  let  off  his  recalcitrant  clergy  vas  custodiat." — Ibid.  cap.  vii. 
with  the  simple  restriction  demanded        „  T,  .  ,  „  . 

of    the    laity -abstinence    for   three        *  ?°°    autem    mag.strum    Petrum 

days    previous    to   partaking   of    the  Manducatorem    in    audientia    totms 

J      r  .  «in   •  •  •*       •     •  schola?    suae  quae    tot  et   tantis   vms 

communion.     "Qui  lcitur  in  immun-  ...       ..     .     .  ^      e    .       .  ..     ,.       , 

-,...  ,    ..  ,°  .    ,  ,    .,  literattssimis    referta    fuit    dicentem 

ditiae    veluti    suo  volutabro   volvitur         ,.    .  ,      ..    M1         .. 

adhuc  et  versatur,  banc  saltern  altari  audlV.1'  ^.ia  »W»»  h~tlB  lUf  antl- 

.  .n  ..   '  ..  quusin  ahquo  articnlo,  adeoecclesiam 

sacro  et  sacnficiis  reverentiam  sacer-  -A  .  ^        ..      .     .    .  ,.   .,,. 

Dei    circumvenit,  sicut  in  voti  lllius 


dos  exhibeat,  ut  vel  tribus  diebus  et 


emissione. — Ibid.  cap.  vi. 


CLEMENT  III.  AND  INNOCENT  III.     339 

females  from  their  houses  within  forty  days,  under  pain  of 
suspension  from  their  functions  and  revenues.1  That  these 
rebukes  were  not  the  mere  angry  declamation  of  an  ascetic  is 
shown  by  the  declaration  of  Celestine  III.,  a  few  years  later, 
that  throughout  Germany  the  custom  still  prevailed  of  fathers 
substituting  in  their  benefices  their  sons,  born  during  priest- 
hood, so  that  frequently  parent  and  offspring  ministered 
together  in  the  same  church  ;2  and  the  extent  of  the  demorali- 
zation is  evident  when  we  find  the  sons  of  priests  and  deacons 
alluded  to  as  a  class  ineligible  to  knighthood  in  a  constitution 
of  Frederic  Barbarossa  in  1187.3 

Yet,  with  all  his  ardor,  Clement  admitted  that  celibacy  was 
only  a  local  rule  of  discipline,  and  that  there  was  nothing 
really  incompatible  between  marriage  and  the  holy  functions 
of  the  altar.  The  time  had  not  yet  come  when  the  council 
of  £Trent  could  erect  the  inviolable  continence  of  the  priest- 
hood into  an  article  of  faith,  and  Clement  was  willing  to 
allow  that  priests  of  the  Greek  church,  under  his  jurisdiction, 
could  legitimately  be  married  and  could  celebrate  mass  while 
their  families  were  growing  up  around  them.4 

Innocent  III.,  who,  by  the  fortunate  conjunction  of  the  time 
in  which  he  flourished  with  his  own  matchless  force  of  cha- 
racter, enjoyed  perhaps  the  culmination  of  papal  power  and 
prerogative,  at  length  brought  to  the  struggle  an  influence 
and  a  determination  which  could  scarcely  fail  to  prove  de- 
cisive on  any  question  capable  of  a  favorable  solution.     By 


1  De  incontinentia  vero  clericorum,  1192,  Odo,  Bishop  of  Toul,  deplored  the 

unde  ira  Dei  contra  nos  maxime  pro-  wickedness  of  monks  who  left  their 

vocatur,  et  scandala  gravissima  inter  monasteries  and  openly  married.     All 

clerum  et  populum  excitantur,  apos-  such  he  excommunicated,  with  their 
tolica  auctoritate  firmissime  prsecipi-  j  wives   and   families. — Statut.    Synod. 

mus,  ut  omnes  suspectas  personas  de  Odon.  Tullens.  cap.  vi.   (Hartzheim, 

domo  et  procuratione  sua,  infra  quad-  III.  456). 

raginta  dies  removeant  ;  quod  si  non  ■'•••*-,.,  j  ,  -,. 

t        -   *      i  •  „ffi,;~   „i   Iwm.  fl.;~  i         De  filns  quoque  sacerdotum,  dia- 

fecerint,  ab  oinni  omcio   et   benencio  t-  »   . 

ecclesiastico  suspendantur.  -  Epist.  ^onorum,  rusticorum,  statmmus,  ne 
Henr.  Card.  Albanens.  (Ludewig,  Kel.  unguium  mil.  are  ahquatenus  assu- 
Msctor   II  441).  mant ;  et  qui  jam  assuraPserunt>  per 

judicem  provincial  a  militia  pellantur. 


2  Baluz.  et  Mansi  III.  380.      Even 


■Feudor.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  x. — Couf.  Conr. 


the    regular    clergy    shared    in    the  j  Urspergens.  ann.  1187. 

general  relaxation  of  discipline.     In        (  ^  ?  ^^  ^  y<  m  ^...^ 


340 


GENERAL   LEGISLATION. 


his  decretals  and  his  legates  he  labored  assiduously  to  enforce 
obedience  to  the  canons,  and  when,  in  1215,  he  summoned 
the  whole  Christian  world  to  meet  in  the  fourth  council  of 
Lateran,  that  august  assembly  of  about  thirteen  hundred 
prelates,  acting  under  his  impulsion,  and  reflecting  his  tri- 
umph over  John  of  England  and  Otho  of  Germany,  spoke 
with  an  authority  which  no  former  body  since  that  of  Nicsea 
had  possessed.  Its  canons  on  the  subject  before  us  were 
simple,  perhaps  less  violent  in  their  tone  than  those  of  former 
synods,  but  they  breathed  the  air  of  conscious  strength,  and 
there  was  no  man  that  dared  to  openly  gainsay  them.  A  more 
rigid  observance  of  the  rules  was  enjoined,  and  any  one 
officiating  while  suspended  for  contravention  was  punishable 
with  perpetual  degradation  and  deprivation  of  his  emoluments. 
Yet  the  rule  was  admitted  to  be  merely  a  local  ordinance 
peculiar  to  the  Latin  church,  for,  in  the  effort  made  bji  the 
council  to  heal  the  schism  with  Constantinople,  the  right  of 
the  East  to  permit  the  marriage  of  its  priests  was  acknow- 
ledged by  a  clause  visiting  with  severe  penalties  those  who 
by  custom  were  allowed  to  marry,  and  who,  notwithstanding 
this  license,  still  permitted  themselves  illicit  indulgences.  The 
disgraceful  traffic  by  which  in  some  places  prelates  regularly 
sold  permissions  to  sin  was  denounced  in  the  strongest  terms, 
as  a  vice  equal  in  degree  to  that  which  it  encouraged ;  and 
the  common  custom  of  fathers  obtaining  preferment  in  their 
own  churches  for  their  illegitimate  offspring  was  reprobated 
as  it  deserved.1  •  ••  ••   .  ^,    •.    • 


1  Ne  vero  facilitas  venise  incenti-, 
vum  tribuat  delinquendi :  statuimus, 
ut  qui  deprehensi  fuerint  inconti- 
nentise  vitio  laborare,  prout  niagis  aut 
minus  peccaverint,  puniantur  secun- 
dum canonicas  sanctiones,  quas  effica- 
cius  et  districtius  praecipimus  obser- 
vari,  ut  quos  divinus  timor  a  malo 
non  revocat,  temporalis  saltern  poena 
a  peccato  cohibeat. 

Si  quis  igitur  hac  de  causa  sus- 
pensus,  divina  celebrare  prsesump- 
serit,  non  solum  ecclesiasticis  bene- 
ficiis  spolietur,  verum  etiam  pro  hac 
duplici  culpa,  perpetuo  deponatur. 

Praelati  vero  qui  tales  prsesumpse- 
rint   in   suis  iniquitatibus  sustinere, 


maxime  obtentu  pecuniae  vel  alterius 
commodi  temporalis,  pari  subjaceant 
ultioni. 

.  Qui  autem  secundum  regionis  suae 
morem  non  abdicarunt  copulam  con- 
jugalem,  si  lapsi  fuerint,  gravius  puni- 
antur, cum  legitimo  matrimonio  pos- 
sint  uti. — Concil.  Lateranens.  IV.  can. 
14. 

Ad  abolendam  pessiman,  quae  in 
plerisque  inolevit  ecclesiis,  corrupte- 
lam,  firmiter  prohibemus,  ne  canoni- 
corum  filii,  maxime  spurii,  canonici 
fiant  in  saecularibus  ecclesiis,  in  qui- 
bus  instituti  sunt  patres  etc. — Ibid, 
can.  31. 


FOURTH  COUNCIL  OF  LATERAN.       341 

There  is  nothing  novel  in  these  canons,  nor  can  they  in 
strictness  be  said  to  constitute  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
sacerdotal  celibacy.  They  enunciate  no  new  principles,  they 
threaten  no  new  punishments,  yet  are  they  noteworthy  as 
marking  the  settled  policy  of  the  church  at  a  period  when  it 
had  acquired  that  plenitude  of  power  and  vigor  of  organiza- 
tion which  insured  at  least  an  outward  show  of  obedience  to 
its  commands.  The  successive  labors  of  so  long  a  series  of 
pontiffs,  during  more  than  a  century  and  a  half,  carrying 
with  them  the  cumulative  authority  of  Korne,  had  gradually 
broken  down  resistance,  and  the  Lateran  canons  were  the 
definitive  expression  of  its  discipline  on  this  subject.  Ac- 
cordingly, though  we  shall  see  how  little  was  accomplished 
in  securing  the  purity  of  the  priesthood,  which  was  the 
ostensible  object  of  the  rule,  yet  hereafter  there  are  to  be 
found  few  traces  of  marriage  in  holy  orders.  That  was  recog- 
nized as  inadmissible,  except  in  those  countries  which  lay  on 
the  frontiers  of  Christendom,  and  even  in  them  it  was  virtually 
extirpated  long  ere  the  close  of  the  century. 


U  B  U  A  a  > 

UN  J  \  KusiTY    <>F 

CALIFORNIA 


XXI. 
EESULTS. 

The  unrelaxing  efforts  of  two  centuries  had  at  length 
achieved  an  inevitable  triumph.  One  by  one  the  different 
churches  of  Latin  Christendom  yielded  to  the  fiat  of  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  their  ecclesiastics  were  forced  to 
forego  the  privilege  of  assuming  the  most  sacred  of  earthly 
ties  with  the  sanction  of  heaven  and  the  approbation  of  man. 
Sacerdotalism  vindicated  its  claim  to  exclusive  obedience; 
the  church  successfully  asserted  its  right  to  command  the 
entire  life  of  its  members,  and  to  sunder  all  the  bonds  that 
might  allure  them  to  render  a  divided  allegiance.  In  theory, 
at  least,  all  who  professed  a  religious  life  or  assumed  the 
sacred  ministry  were  given  up  wholly  to  the  awful  service 
which  they  had  undertaken :  no  selfishly  personal  aspirations 
could  divert  their  energies  from  the  aggrandizement  of  their 
class,  nor  were  the  temporal  possessions  of  the  establishment 
to  be  exposed  to  the  minute  but  all-pervading  dilapidation  of 
the  wife  and  family. 

If  these  were  the  objects  of  the  movement  inaugurated  by 
Damiani  and  Hildebrand,  and  followed  up  with  such  unre- 
lenting vigor  by  Calixtus  and  Alexander  and  Innocent,  the 
history  of  the  medieval  church  attests  how  fully  they  were 
attained.  It  is  somewhat  instructive,  indeed,  to  observe  that 
in  the  rise  of  the  papal  power  to  its  culmination  under  Inno- 
cent III.  it  was  precisely  the  pontiffs  most  conspicuous  for 
their  enforcement  of  the  rule  of  celibacy  who  were  likewise 
most  prominent  in  their  assertion  of  the  supremacy,  temporal 
and  spiritual,  of  the  head  of  the  Roman  church.  Whether  or 
not  they  recognized  and  acknowledged  the  connection,  they 
labored  as  though  the  end  in  view  was  clearly  appreciated, 


DANGERS   UNHEEDED. 


343 


and  their  triumphs  on  the  one  field  were  sure  to  be  followed 
by  corresponding  successes  on  the  other. 

Yet  in  all  this  the  ostensible  object  was  always  represented 
to  be  the  purity  of  the  church  and  of  its  ministers.  The 
other  advantages  were  either  systematically  ignored  or  but 
casually  alluded  to.  If  the  results  which  were  thus  kept  in 
the  background  were  attained,  what  was  the  effect  with  regard 
to  those  which  were  held  out  as  the  sole  and  sufficient  reason 
for  reforming  the  great  body  of  the  church,  and  resuscitating 
the  all  but  forgotten  law  which  opened  an  impassable  gulf 
between  the  ecclesiastic  and  the  layman? 

One  warning  voice,  indeed,  was  raised,  in  a  quarter  where 
it  would  have  at  least  commanded  respectful  attention,  had 
not  the  church  appeared  to  imagine  itself  superior  to  the 
ordinary  laws  of  cause  and  effect.  While  Innocent  II.  was 
laboring  to  enforce  his  new  doctrine  that  ordination  and 
religious  vows  were  destructive  of  marriage,  St.  Bernard,-  the 
ascetic  reformer  of  monachism  and  the  foremost  ecclesiastic 
of  his  day,  was  thundering  against  the  revival  of  Manicheism. 
The  heresies  of  the  Albigenses  respecting  marriage  were  to 
be  combated,  and,  in  performing  this  duty,  he  pointed  out 
with  startling  vigor  the  evils  to  the  church  and  to  mankind 
of  the  attempt  to  enforce  a  purity  incompatible  with  human 
nature.  Deprive  the  church  of  honorable  marriage,  he  ex- 
claimed, and  you  fill  herewith  concubinage,  incest,  and  all 
manner  of  nameless  vice  and  uncleanness.1  It  was  still  an 
age  of  faith;  and  while  earnest  men  like  St.  Bernard  could 
readily  anticipate  the  evils  attendant  upon  the  asceticism  of 
heretics,  they  could  yet  persuade  themselves,  as  the  Council 
of  Trent  subsequently  expressed  it,  that  God  would  not  deny 
the  gift  of  chastity  to  those  who  rightly  sought  it  in  the 
bosom  of  the  true  church.  Thus,  despite  the  divine  warning, 
they  were  resolved  deliberately  to  tempt  the  Lord,  and  it 
remains  for  us  to  see  what  was  the  success  of  the  attempt. 


1  Tolle  de  ecclesia  honorabile  connu- 
biuin  et  torum  imuiaculatiim  ;  nonne 
reples  earn  concubinariis,  incestuosis, 
seininifluis,     mollibus,     inasculorum 


concubitoribus  etomni  denique  genere 
immundorum  ? — Bernardi  Serm.  lxvi. 
in  Cantic.  §  3. — This  series  is  under- 
stood  to  have  been  written  in  1135. 


344 


RESULTS, 


It  is  somewhat  significant  that  when,  in  France,  the  rule 
of  celibacy  was  completely  restored,  strict  churchmen  should 
have  found  it  necessary  to  revive  the  hideously  suggestive 
restriction  which  denied  to  the  priest  the  society  of  his 
mother  or  of  his  sister.  Even  in  the  profoundest  barbarism 
of  the  tenth  century,  or  the  unbridled  license  of  the  eleventh; 
even  when  Damiani  descanted  upon  the  disorders  of  his  con- 
temporaries with  all  the  cynicism  of  the  most  exalted  ascetic- 
ism, horrors  such  as  these  are  not  alluded  to.  It  is  reserved 
for  the  advancement  of  the  thirteenth  century  and  the  en- 
forcement of  celibacy  to  show  us  how  outraged  human  nature 
may  revenge  itself  and  protest  against  the  shackles  imposed 
by  blind  and  unreasoning  bigotry.  In  1208,  Guala,  Cardinal 
of  St.  Martin,  Innocent's  legate  in  France,  issued  an  order 
in  which  he  not  only  repeated  the  threadbare  prohibitions 
respecting  focariae  and  concubines,  but  commanded  that  even 
mothers  and  other  relatives  should  not  be  allowed  to  reside 
with  men  in  holy  orders,  the  devil  being  the  convenient  per- 
sonage on  whom,  as  usual,  was  thrown  the  responsibility  of 
the  scandals  which  were  known  to  occur  under  such  circum- 
stances.1 That  this  decree  was  not  allowed  to  pass  into  speedy 
oblivion  is  shown  by  a  reference  to  it  as  still  well  known  and 
in  force  a  century  later,  in  the  statutes  of  the  church  of  Tre- 
guier.2  And  that  the  necessity  for  it  was  not  evanescent  may 
be  assumed  from  its  repetition  in  Jhe  regulations  of  the  see 
of  Nismes,  the  date  of  which  is  uncertain,  but  probably 
attributable  to  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century.3  At  the 
same  time,  we  have  evidence  that  Cardinal  Guala's  efforts 
were  productive  of  little  effect.  Four  years  later,  in  1212,  we 
find  Innocent  formally  authorizing  the  prelates  of  France  to 
mercifully  pardon  those  who  had  been  excommunicated  under 
Guala's  rules,  with  the  suggestive  proviso  that  the  power  thus 


1  Moneantur  quoque  ne  matres  vel 
uxores,  aliasque  conjunctas  personas 
secum  habeant :  cum  quibus  etsi  nihil 
ssevi  criminis  fcedus  naturale  existi- 
inari  permittat,taraen  frequenter,  sug- 
gerente  diabolo,  cum  talibus  noscitur 
fuisse  facinus  perpetratum. — Constit. 
Grallonis  cap.  i.  (Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  n. 
p.  1975). — Giraldus  Cambrensis,  a  few 


years  earlier,  makes  the  same  asser- 
tion (Gemma.  Eccles.  Dist.  n.  cap. 
xv.). 

2  Statut.   Eccles.   Trecorens.   c.  32 
(Martene  et  Durand  IV.  1102). 

3  Statut.    Eccles.   Nemausens.   Tit. 
vn.  c.  5  (Ibid.  IV.  1044). 


EFFORTS   TO   MAINTAIN   DISCIPLINE.  345 

conferred  was  not  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  extorting 
*  unhallowed  gains.1  Still  more  significant  is  the  fact  that  in 
the  same  year  Innocent  dispatched  another  legate,  Cardinal 
Robert,  duly  commissioned  to  renew  the  endless  task  of  puri- 
fying the  Gallican  church.  Guala's  efforts  would  seem  to 
have  already  passed  into  oblivion,  for  in  a  council  which 
Cardinal  Robert  held  in  Paris  he  gravely  promulgated  a 
canon  forbidding  the  priesthood  from  keeping  their  concu- 
bines so  openly  as  to  give  rise  to  scandal,  and  threatening 
the  recalcitrant  with  excommunication  if  they  should  persist 
in  retaining  their  improper  consorts  for  forty  days  after 
receiving  notice.2 

The  clergy  of  France  were  not  exceptional,  and,  unfor- 
tunately, there  can  be  no  denial  of  the  fact  that  notorious  and 
undisguised  illicit  unions,  or  still  more  debasing  secret  licen- 
tiousness, was  a  universal  and  pervading  vice  of  the  church 
throughout  Christendom.  Its  traces  amid  all  the  ecclesiastical 
legislation  of  the  thirteenth,  fourteenth,  and  fifteenth  centuries 
are  too  broad  and  deep  to  be  called  into  question,  and  if  no 
evidence  remained  except  the  constant  and  unavailing  efforts 
to  repress  it,  that  alone  would  be  sufficient.  National  and 
local  synods,  pastoral  epistles,  statutes  of  churches,  all  the 
records  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  are  full  of  it.  Now  de- 
ploring and  now  threatening,  exhausting  ingenuity  in  devising 
new  regulations  and  more  effective  punishments,  the  prelates 
of  those  ages  found  themselves  involved  in  a  task  as  endless 
and  as  bootless  as  that  of  the  Danaidse.  Occasionally,  indeed, 
it  is  lost  sight  of  momentarily,  when  the  exactions  and  usurpa- 
tions of  the  laity,  or  the  gradual  extension  of  secular  juris- 
diction monopolized  the  attention  of  those  who  were  bound 
to  defend  the  privileges  of  their  class ;  but,  with  these  rare 
exceptions,  it  may  be  asserted  as  a  general  truth  that  scarcely 
a  synod  met,  or  a  body  of  laws  was  drawn  up  to  govern  some 
local  church,  in  which  the  subject  did  not  receive  a  prominent 
position  and  careful  consideration.  It  would  be  wearisome 
and  unprofitable  to  recapitulate  here  the  details  of  this  fruit- 


1  Innocent.  PP.  III.  Regest.  Lib.  xv.  I      2  Concil.  Parisiens.  ann.  1212,  can! 
Epist.  113.  i  4  (Harduin.  T.  VI.  P.  n.  p.  2001). 


346 


RESULTS 


less  iteration.  Without  by  any  means  exhausting  the  almost 
limitless  materials  for  investigation,  I  have  collected  a  formi- 
dable mass  of  references  upon  the  subject,  but  an  examination 
of  them  shows  so  little  of  novelty  and  so  constant  a  recurrence 
to  the  starting  point,  that  no  new  principles  can  be  evolved 
from  them,  and  their  only  interest  lies  in  their  universality, 
and  in  demonstrating  how  resultless  was  the  unceasing  effort 
to  remove  the  uneffaceable  plague-spot.1 

Nor  is  it  only  from  these  sources  that  are  to  be  collected 
the  evidences  of  the  open  and  avowed  shame  of  the  church. 
The  Neapolitan  code,  promulgated  about  1231  by  the  en- 
lightened Frederic  II.,  absolutely  interfered  to  give  a  quasi 
legitimacy  to  the  children  of  ecclesiastics,  and  removed,  to  a 
certain  extent,  their  disability  of  inheritance.  The  imperial 
officials  were  ordered  to  assign  appropriate  shares  in  parental 
property  to  such  children,  notwithstanding  their  illegitimacy, 
conditioned  on  the  payment  of  an  annual  tax  to  the  imperial 
court;  and  parents  were  not  allowed  to  alienate  their  pro- 
perty to  the  prejudice  of  such  children,  any  more  than  in 


1  One  reference,  perhaps,  may  be 
allowed,  from  its  comprehensiveness. 
When,  in  1259,  Alexander  IV.  sought 
to  check  the  licentiousness  which 
shamelessly  paraded  the  concubines 
of  the  clergy  before  the  faces  of  the 
people,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  attribute 
to  the  dissolute  ecclesiastics  all  the 
evils  under  which  the  church  was 
groaning.  "  Per  tales  maxime  nomen 
Dei  Domini  blasphematur  in  terris  : 
per  tales  derogatur  sacramentis  fidei 
orthodoxse,  cum  vasa  Domini  pollutis 
eorum  manibus  profanantur :  per  tales 
ergo  perdit  religionem  Catholicam  de- 
votio  reverentise  Christiana? :  per  tales 
decipitur  populus  in  divinis,  et  eccle- 
siastica  substantia  dissipatur.  Hinc 
detrahitur  verbo  Dei,  dum  immundis 
labiis  talium  nunciatur:  hinc  hseretici 
mussitant  et  insultant :  hinc  tyranni 
sseviunt :  hinc  perfidi  persequuntur  : 
hinc  grassantur  audacius  in  Christi 
patrimonio  sacrilegi  exactores,  a  qui- 
bus,  proh  pudor !  ob  hujusmodi  carnes 
putridas,  quas  disciplinalis  mucro  non 
resecat,  sicut  decet,  sincerum  Catho- 


licse  matris  corpus  in  ostentum  du- 
citur  et  contemptum."  The  sincerity 
of  his  conviction  was  manifested  by 
his  ordering  the  prelates  of  Christen- 
dom to  prosecute  all  such  offences 
with  the  utmost  severity  under  the 
canons,  and,  as  the  only  way  to  render 
this  effectual,  he  forbade  all  appeals 
to  Rome  in  such  cases,  thus  surren- 
dering the  power  which  had  cost  his 
predecessors  so  many  struggles  to  ob- 
tain.—  Chron.  Augustens.  ann.  1260 
(Freher.  et  Struv.  I.  546-7). 

This  Bull  caused  considerable  stir. 
Many  prelates  were  stimulated  by  it 
to  reform  their  flocks,  and  large  num- 
bers of  ecclesiastics  were  expelled  from 
the  church.  A  contemporary  rhyme- 
ster, Adam  de  la  Halle  (better  known 
perhaps  as  Le  Rossu  d'Arras),  thus 
alludes  to  its  effects  :  — 

Et  chascuns  le  pape  encosa 
Quant  tant  de  bons  clers  desposa. — 
— Komme  a  bien  le  tierche  partie 
Des  clers  fais  sers  et  amatis. 

(Michel,  Theat.  Fran,  au  Moyen 
Age,  p.  23.) 


CHILDREN    OF    ECCLESIASTICS.  347 

cases  of  the  offspring  of  lawful  wedlock.1  The  numbers  and 
influence  of  the  class  thus  protected  must  indeed  have  been 
great  to  induce  such  interference  in  their  favor. 

The  direct  encouragement  thus  given  to  these  illicit  con- 
nections, by  providing  for  the  children  sprung  from  them, 
contravened  one  of  the  principal  modes  by  which  the  church 
endeavored  to  suppress  them.  The  innumerable  canons 
issued  during  this  period,  forbidding  and  pronouncing  null 
and  void  all  testamentary  provisions  in  favor  of  concubines 
and  descendants,  prove  not  only  how  much  stress  was  laid 
upon  it  as  an  efficient  means  of  repression,  but  also  how  little 
endeavor  was  made  by  the  guilty  parties  to  conceal  their  sin. 
As  all  testaments  came  within  the  sphere  of  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction,  it  would  seem  that  there  should  have  been  no 
difficulty  in  enforcing  regulations  of  this  kind,  yet  their  con- 
stant repetition  proves  either  that  those  who  were  intrusted 
with  their  execution  were  habitually  remiss,  or  else  that  the 
popular  feelings  were  in  favor  of  the  unfortunates,  and  inter- 
fered with  the  efficacy  of  the  laws. 

A  single  instance,  out  of  many  that  might  be  cited,  will 
illustrate  this.  In  1225  the  Cardinal-legate  Conrad  held,  at 
Mainz,  a  national  council  of  the  German  empire,  of  which 
one  of  the  canons  declared  that,  in  order  to  abolish  the  cus- 
tom of  ecclesiastics  leaving  to  their  concubines  and  children 
the  fruits  of  their  benefices,  not  only  should  such  legacies  be 
void,  but  those  guilty  of  the  attempt  should  lie  unburied, 
and  all  who  endeavored  to  enforce  such  testaments  should  be 
anathematized.2  The  terrible  rigor  of  these  provisions 
shows  how  deep  seated  was  the  evil  aimed  at ;  nor  were  they 
uncalled  for  when  we    see  a  will,  executed  in  1218  by  no 


1  Constit.  Sicular.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  25,  c.  j  prelates  of  that  kingdom  "  prsesertim 
1. — "Quiafiliiclericoruminpaterniset  j  super  cohabitatione  mulierura  ;"  and 
inaternis  bonis  vel  rebus,  pro  legitimo  j  two  years  later  he  deemed  it  neces- 
defectu    natalium,    jus    successionis  j  sary   to    repeat    his    admonitions. - 


amittunt  .  .  .  ea  quae  per  successio- 
nem  habere  non  possunt,  jure  locatio- 
nis  a  nostra  dementia  recognoscant." 
It  is  possible  that  Frederick's  legis- 
lation may  have  attracted  attention 
to  the  irregularities  of  the  Neapolitan 
church,  for  in  1230  Gregory  IX.  ad- 
dressed   an   encyclical   letter  to  the 


Raynaldi  Annal.  ann.  1230,  No.  20. 

2  Concil.  Mogunt.  ann.  1225,  c.  5. 
This  council  was  assembled  to  check 
the  prevalent  vices  of  concubinage 
and  simony,  and  its  elaborate  provi- 
sions show  how  fruitless  previous 
efforts  had  been. 


348 


RESULTS 


less  a  personage  than  Gotfrid,  Archdeacon  of  Wnrzbnrg,  in 
which  he  leaves  legacies  to  the  children  whom  he  confesses 
to  have  been  born  in  sin,  and  of  whom  he  expects  his  rela- 
tives to  take  charge.1  Had  any  earnest  attempt  been  made 
to  enforce  the  canons  *of  the  Legate,  they  wonld  have  been 
amply  sufficient  to  eradicate  the  evil ;  yet  their  utter  ineffi- 
ciency is  demonstrated  by  the  council  of  Fritzlar  in  1246, 
and  that  of  Cologne  in  1260.  The  former  of  these  was  held 
by  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz;  it  has  no  canons  directed 
against  concubinage,  which  was  as  public  as  ever,  but  it 
deplores  the  dilapidation  of  the  temporalities  of  the  church 
by  the  testamentary  provisions  of  priests  in  favor  of  their 
guilty  partners  and  children,  and  it  repeats,  with  additional 
emphasis,  the  regulations  of  1225. 2  The  latter  renews  the 
complaint  that  priests  not  only  continue  their  evil  courses 
throughout  life,  but  are  not  ashamed,  on  their  death-beds,  to 
leave  to  their  children  the  patrimony  of  Christ ;  and  another 
provision  is  equally  significant  in  forbidding  priests  to  be 
present  at  the  marriages  of  their  children,  or  that  such  mar- 
riages should  be  solemnized  with  pomp  and  ostentation.3 
The  following  year  another  council,  held  at  Mainz,  repeated 
the  prohibition  as  to  the  diversion  of  church  property  to  the 
consorts  and  natural  children  of  priests;4  while  that  regard- 
ing the  solemnization  of  their  children's  marriages  was  re- 
newed by  the  synod  of  Olmutz  in  1342. 5 


1  Puerulis  etiara  quos  in  peccato 
genera vi,  ne  ad  illicita  cogantur  ope- 
ra, lego  maiori  xx.  marcas,  etc. — 
(Gudeni  Cod.  Diplom.  II.  36.)  Not  a 
few  testaments  of  this  kind  are  pre- 
served. 

a  Concil.  Fritzlar.  ann.  1246,  can. 
xi.  (Hartzheim,  III.  574). 

3  Concil.  Coloniens.  ann.  1260, 
c.  1. 

4  Concil.  Mogunt.  ann.  1261,  can. 
xxvii.  xxxix.  (Hartzheim,  III.  604, 
607).  The  latter  canon  is  very  pro- 
lix and  earnest,  and  inveighs  strongly 
against  the  "  cullagium,"  or  payment 
exacted  by  archdeacons  and  deans 
for  permitting  irregularities.  The  au- 
thorities apparently   grew  gradually 


tired  of  attempting  the  impossible. 
In  1284  the  Council  of  Passau,  in  a 
series  of  long  and  elaborate  canons, 
contented  itself  with  a  vague  threat 
of  prosecuting  priests  who  publicly 
kept  concubines,  and  with  prohibit- 
ing them  from  ostentatiously  cele- 
brating the  marriage  of  their  children. 
— Concil.  Patav.  ann.  1284,  can.  ix. 
xxxi.  (Ibid.  pp.  675,  679). 

5  Synod.  Olomucens.  ann.  1342, 
cap.  viii.  (Hartzheim,  IV.  338).  In 
1416  the  synod  of  Breslau  deplores 
that  the  old  canons  were  forgotten 
and  despised,  and  that  priests  were 
not  ashamed  to  bequeath  to  their 
bastards  accumulations  of  property 
which  would   form    fit    portions    for 


CHILDREN    OF    ECCLESIASTICS.  349 

We  have  already  seen  ecclesiastical  authority  for  the 
assertion  that  in  the  Spanish  Peninsula  the  children  sprung 
from  such  illicit  connections  rivalled  in  numbers  the  offspring 
of  the  laity.  That  they  were  numerous  elsewhere  may  be 
presumed  when  we  see  Innocent  IV.,  in  1248,  forced  to  grant 
to  the  province  of  Livonia  the  privilege  of  having  them  eligi- 
ble to  holy  orders,  except  when  born  of  parents  involved  in 
monastic  vows,1  for  necessity  alone  could  excuse  so  flagrant 
a  departure  from  the  canons  enunciated  during  the  preceding 
two  centuries.  A  similar  conclusion  is  deducible  from  the 
fact  that  in  the  municipal  code  in  force  throughout  Northern 
Germany  during  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries, 
they  were  deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  entitled  to  a 
separate  place  in  the  classification  of  wehr-gilds,  or  blood- 
moneys  ;  while  the  aim  of  the  lawgiver  to  stigmatize  them  is 
manifested  by  his  placing  them  below  the  peasant,  deeming 
them  only  superior  to  the  juggler  ;2  and  that  this  was  not  a 
provision  of  transient  force  is  clear  from  the  commentary 
upon  it  in  a  body  of  law  dating  from  the  end  of  the  four- 
teenth century.3  Nor  is  the  evidence  less  convincing  which 
may  be  drawn  from  the  use  of  the  old  German  word  jpfaffen- 
Icind,  or  priest's  son,  which  became  generally  used  as  equiva- 
lent to  bastard.4  It  would  not,  indeed,  be  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  numbers  of  this  class  of  the  population  if  ecclesias- 
tics in  general  followed  the  example  of  Henry  III.,  Bishop  of 
Liege,  whose  natural  children  amounted  to  no  less  than 
sixty- five.5 


lofty  nobles. — Synod.  Wratislav.  ann.  j      3  Richsticli  Landreclit,  Lib.  n.  c.  25. 

1416,  §  1  (Hartzheim   V.  153).  ,  Michelet  0ri  ines  des  Loi  68> 

How  thoroughly  it  was  deemed  a    m,  .  7       %z  •  •   *  * 

mattPi-  of  coarse  for   the  children  of    ThlS  P°Pular   Phrase    Sives    Pomt   to 
mattei  ot  course  lor  tne  cnildren  ot  ^  d  Henri  E  ti  f 

ecclesiastics  to  marry  well,  and  have  \      n  i         j       *      r>  * 

,  ,        .       .     "     jf  !  7    ni.        i  a  German  ambassador  to    Rome,   to 

good  dowries,  is  to  be  seen  in  Chau-       ,  ,  .     ,  „         -,.  \, 

8    ,     ,        .    ,'.        e  a       -e     t  u  i  i     whom,  on  his  farewell   audience,  the 
cer  s  description  of  the  wife  of  "  dei-  '  ,     u.     _     . 

at      i-    >,  4,  j       in        e   pope  cave  a  message  to  his  master, 

nous  Simekm ,     the   proud  miller  of   r  •    s      .        umZ*i  ~  n  i    i       a 

T  .      ,        '  r  commencing,  "  Tell  our  well-beloved 

son"— The  honest  Teuton  could  not 

contain  himself  at  what  he  took  to  be 

a  flagrant  insult,  and  he  interrupted 

the    diplomatic    courtesies   with    an 

angry    exclamation   that    his    noble 

master  was  not  the  son  of  a  priest. — 

1  Baluz.  et  Mansi  I.  211.  I  Apol.  pour  Herodote  Liv.  i.  chap.  iii. 

2  Specul.  Saxon.  Lib.  in.  art.  45.  5  This  admirable  prelate,  after  en- 


A  wif  he  hadde,  comen  of  noble  kin  ; 
The  person  of  the  toun  hire  father  was. 
With  hire  he  yaf  ful  many  a  panne  of  bras 
For  that  Simkin  shnld  in  his  blood  allie. 
She  was  yfostered  in  a  nounerie,  etc. 

—The  Reves  Tale. 


350  RESULTS. 

As  time  wore  on,  and  the  clergy,  despite  the  innumerable 
admonitions  and  threats  which  were  everywhere  showered 
upon  them,  persisted  in  retaining  their  female  companions, 
they  appear,  in  some  places,  to  have  gradually  assumed  the 
privilege  as  a  matter  of  right ;  and,  what  is  even  more  re- 
markable, they  seem  to  have  had  a  certain  measure  of  success 
in  the  assumption.  The  pious  Charles  the  Lame  of  Naples, 
whose  close  alliance  with  Eome  rendered  him  eager  in  every- 
thing that  would  gratify  the  head  of  the  church,  about  the 
year  1300  imposed  a  heavy  fine  on  the  concubines  of  priests 
if  they  persisted  in  their  sin  for  a  year  after  excommunica- 
tion. This  law,  like  so  many  similar  ones,  soon  fell  into 
desuetude,  but  in  1317,  under  his  son  Eobert  the  Good,  the 
justiciary  of  the  Principato  Citra  undertook  to  put  it  into 
execution.  In  the  diocese  of  Marsico  the  clergy  openly  re- 
sisted these  proceedings,  boldly  laid  their  complaints  before 
the  king,  and  were  so  energetic  that  Eobert  was  obliged  to 
issue  an  ordinance  directing  the  discontinuance  of  all  pro- 
cesses before  the  lay  tribunals,  and  granting  that  the  concu- 
bines should  be  left  to  the  care  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts 
alone.  These  women  thus,  by  reason  of  their  sinful  courses, 
came  to  be  invested  with  a  quasi-ecclesiastical  character,  and 
to  enjoy  the  dearly  prized  immunities  attached  to  that  position, 
at  a  time  Avhen  the  church  was  vigorously  striving  to  uphold 
and  extend  the  privileges  which  the  civil  lawyers  were  sys- 
tematically laboring  to  undermine.  Nor  was  the  pretension 
thus  advanced  suffered  to  lapse.     Towards  the  close  of  the 


joying  the  episcopate  for  twenty-seven 
years,  was  at  length  deposed  in  1274 
by    Gregory    X.,    at    the    council    of 
Lyons,  in    consequence    of  the   com 
plaints    of   his   Mock  "  super  deflora 


ping  himself  up  in  the  Franciscan 
habit  on  his  death-bed.  For  ages  the 
robe  of  the  monk  had  thus  assuaged 
the  fears  of  the  dying  sinner,  but  the 
merits    of   St.   Francis  gave  peculiar 


tione  virginum  ac  aliis  f'actis  enormi-    virtue  to  this  claim  upon  his  special 


bus." — Mag.  Chron.  Belgic. 

The  excesses  of  the  lower  orders  of 
the  clergy  are  scarcely  to  be  wondered 
at  when  we  consider  the  prevalent 
superstitions  which  deemed  them  al- 
most irresponsible  to  God  or  man. 
In  the  early  part  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury there  was   a  wide-spread   belief 


protection,  for  every  year  he  visited 
purgatory,  and  carried  with  him  to 
heaven  the  souls  of  his  followers. 
So  easy  a  purchase  of  salvation,  how- 
ever, was  equally  dangerous  to  the 
welfare  of  the  faithful  and  to  the  re- 
venues of  the  church,  and  the  super- 
stition was  promptly  condemned  as 


that  even  a  layman  insured  his  eter-  a  most  pernicious  error.  —  Concil. 
nal  salvation,  no  matter  what  crimes  j  Hammaburg.  ann.  1406  (Hartzheim, 
lie  might  have  committed,  by  wrap- 1  VI.  2). 


OBEDIENCE    REFUSED.  351 

same  century,  Carlo  Malatesta  of  Rimini  applied  to  Ancarono, 
a  celebrated  doctor  of  canon  and  civil  law  ("juris  canonici 
speculum  et  civilis  anchora"),  to  know  whether  he  could  im- 
pose penalties  on  the  concubines  of  priests,  and  the  learned 
jurist  replied  decidedly  in  the  negative;  while  other  legal 
authorities  have  not  hesitated  to  state  that  such  women  are 
fully  entitled  to  immunity  from  secular  jurisdiction,  as  belong- 
ing to  the  families  of  clerks — de  familia  clericorum.1  When 
a  premium  was  thus  offered  for  sin,  and  the  mistresses  of 
priests — like  the  maitresses-en-titre  of  the  Bourbons — acquired 
a  certain  honorable  position  among  their  fellows  from  the 
mere  fact  of  their  ministering  to  the  unhallowed  lusts  of 
their  pastors,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  if  such  connections 
multiplied  and  flourished,  and  if  the  humble  laity  came  to 
regard  them  as  an  established  institution. 

Robert  of  Naples  was  not  the  only  potentate  who  found 
an  organized  resistance  to  his  well-meant  endeavors  to  restore 
discipline.  When,  in  1410,  the  stout  William,  Bishop-elect 
of  Paderborn,  had  triumphed  with  fire  and  sword  over  his 
powerful  foes,  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne  and  the  Count  of 
Cleves,  he  turned  his  energies  to  the  reformation  of  the  disso- 
lute morals  of  his  monks.  They  positively  refused  to  submit 
to  the  ejection  of  their  women  from  the  monasteries,  and  he 
at  length  found  the  task  too  impracticable  even  for  his  warlike 
temper.  For  seven  long  years  the  quarrel  lasted,  legal  pro- 
ceedings being  varied  by  attempts  at  poison  on  the  one  side, 
and  reckless  devastations  by  the  episcopal  troops  on  the  other, 
until  the  prelate,  worn  out  by  the  stubbornness  of  his  flock, 
was  obliged  to  give  way.2 


1  Giannone,  Apologia  cap.  xiv. 

2  Gobelinse    Personse    Cosraodrom. 
iEtat.  vi.  c.  92,  93. — How  utterly  mo- 


— Concil.  Colon,  arm.  1307,  c.  xvii. 
(Hartzheim,  IV.  113.)  That  this  had 
little  effect  is  proved  by  a  repetition 
of  the   threats  of  punishment,  three 


nastic    discipline   was    neelected    in  .  .      ,~       ,,F~  .  '  ,0,>; 

Germany  is  shown  bv  the  fact  that  a  •  yearS  later  (ConciL  Colon-  ami-  1310> 
Germany  is  shown  by  the  tact  that  a  ;  j  Hartzheim,  IV.  122).  In  1347, 
century  earlier,  in  1307,  a  council  of    T  ,      '  .     .    , '  T..  .       y  «  TT.         '' 

n  ,       J  g       j  .'  '        ,  I  John  van  Arckel,  Bishop  of  Utrecht, 

Cologne  found  it  necessary  to  denounce  ,,.      -,  ,  ',  .,  ..     *     .        ,       ' 

,,      ?  ..,       ,  .  \  was  obliged  to  prohibit  men  from  hav- 

the  frequency  with  which  nuns  were  ■  ,  &    ,     .?  .,.     ,. 

-,        ?   ,   f/,,    .  .     ,.      ,    •     ,  ing  access  to  the  nunneries  of  his  dio- 

seduced,  lett  their  convents,  lived  in  !      &  ,       .  ,    .     " 

j        ,  ..  a.  ,  .,  cese,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  the 

open  and  public  profligacy,  and  then  t  '  £      atmar«Titlv  trZ 

returned  unblushingly  to  their  estab-  I  scai^als  which  weie  apparently  fre- 
li^hments    where  thev  seem  to  have  :  quent  (Hartzheim,  IV.  350).    In  13o0, 


352 


RESULTS, 


Equal  success  waited  on  the  resistance  of  the  Swiss  clergy 
when,  in  1230,  the  civil  authorities  of  Zurich  sacrilegiously 
ordered  them  to  dismiss  their  women.  They  resolutely  re- 
plied that  they  were  flesh  and  blood,  unequal  to  the  task  of 
living  like  angels,  and  unable  to  attend  to  the  kitchen  and 
other  household  duties.  The  townsmen  entered  into  a  league 
against  them,  and  succeeded  in  driving  away  some  of  the 
sacerdotal  consorts,  when  the  Bishop  of  Constance  and  his 
chapter,  allowing  perhaps  the  pride  of  the  churchman  to 
get  the  better  of  ascetic  zeal,  interfered  with  a  threat  of  ex- 
communication on  all  who  should  presume  to  intervene  in 
a  matter  which  related  specially  to  the  church.  He  absolved 
the  leaguers  from  the  oaths  with  which  they  were  mutually 
bound,  and  thus  restored  security  to  the  priestly  households. 
About  the  same  time  Gregory  IX.  appointed  a  certain  Boni- 
face to  the  see  of  Lausanne.  On  his  installation,  the  new 
bishop  commenced  with  ardor  to  enforce  the  canons,  but  the 
clergy  conspired  against  his  life,  and  were  so  nearly  successful 
that  he  incontinently  fled,  and  never  ventured  to  return.1 

If  the  irregular  though  permanent  connections  which 
everywhere  prevailed  had  been  the  only  result  of  the  prohi- 
bition of  marriage,  there  might  perhaps  have  been  little 
practical  evil  flowing  from  it,  except  to  the  church  itself 
and  to  its  guilty  members.  When  the  desires  of  man,  how- 
ever, are  once  tempted  to  seek  through  unlawful  means  the 
relief  denied  to  them  by  artificial  rules,  it  is  not  easy  to  set 
bounds  to  the  unbridled  passions  which,  irritated  by  the 
fruitless  effort  at  repression,  are  no  longer  restrained  by  a  law 
which  has  been  broken  or  a  conscience  which  has  lost  its 
power.     The  records  of  the  Middle  Ages  are  accordingly  full 


upon  to  address  an  earnest  remon- 
strance to  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz 
concerning  the  unclerical  habits  of 
his  canons  and  clergy  who  spent  the 
revenues  of  the  church  in  jousts  and 
tourneys,  and  who,  in  dress,  arms, 
and  mode  of  life,  were  not  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  laymen  (Ibid.  IV. 
358).  How  little  was  effected  by 
these  efforts  is  manifest  when,  in  1360, 
William,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  was 


obliged  to  refute  the  assertions  of 
those  monks  and  nuns  who  alleged  in 
their  defence  that  custom  allowed 
them  to  leave  their  convents  and 
contract  marriage  "  etiamsi  allegent, 
quod  de  consuetudine  monasteria  sua 
deserere  et  matrimonium  contrahere 
possint."— (Ibid.  IV.  493.) 

1  Henke,  Append,    ad   Calixt.  pp. 
585-6. 


EVILS   RESULTING    TO   THE    LAITY.  353 

of  the  evidences  that  indiscriminate  license  of  the  worst  kind 
prevailed  throughout  every  rank  of  the  hierarchy.  The  sub- 
ject is  too  repulsive  to  be  presented  in  all  its  loathsome 
details,  but  one  or  two  allusions  may  be  permitted  as  com- 
pleting the  picture  of  the  moral  condition  of  the  medieval 
church. 

The  abuse  of  the  awful  authority  given  by  the  altar  and 
the  confessional  was  a  subject  of  sorrowful  and  indignant 
denunciation  in  too  many  synods  for  a  reasonable  doubt  to  be 
entertained  of  its  frequency  or  of  the  corruption  which  it 
spread  throughout  innumerable  parishes.1  The  almost  entire 
impunity  with  which  these  and  similar  scandals  were  perpe- 
trated led  to  an  undisguised  and  cynical  profligacy  which  the 
severer  churchmen  themselves  admitted  to  exercise  a  most 
deleterious  influence  on  the  morals  of  the  laity,  who  thus 
found  in  their  spiritual  guides  the  exemplars  of  evil.2  Chau- 
cer, with  his  wide  range  of  observation  and  shrewd  native 
sense,  was  not  likely  to  let  a  matter  so  important  escape  him, 
and  in  the  admirable  practical  sermon  which  forms  his  "Per- 
sone's  Tale,"  he  records  the  conviction  which  every  pure- 
minded  man  felt  with  regard  to  the  demoralizing  tendency 
of  the  sacerdotal   licentiousness   of  the  time.3     Thomas   of 


1  Graviore  autem  sunt  animadver-  j  University  of  Oxford  prepared  a  series 
sione  plectendi,  qui  proprias  filias  spi-  of  articles  for  the  reformation  of  the 
rituales,  quas  baptizaverint  vel  seuiel  !  church.  The  38th  of  the  series  is  di- 
ad  confessionem  admiserint,  violave-  :  rected  against  priestly  immorality, 
riut. — Constit.  Synod.  Gilb.  Episc.  |  and  declares  "  Quia  carnalis  vita  et 
Circestrens.  aim.  1289.  (Wilkins,  |  lubrica  sacerdotum  universam  hodie 
II.  169.)  Similar  allusions  are  un-  i  scandalizat  ecclesiam,  et  eorum  pub- 
fortunately  too  frequent,  and,  as  we  ;  lica  fornicatio  penitus  impunita,  nisi 
shall  see  hereafter,  are  to  be  found  !  forte  levi  et  latente  poena  pecuniaria 
until  a  comparatively  recent  period.     i  perniciosis  cseteris  trahitur  in  exem- 

*  In  his  bull  of  1259,  Alexander  IV.  |  Pl«°»  sanctum  igitur  videtur  ad  ex- 
does   not   hesitate   to  state  that   the  !  pu.rgatl0nem  eCcl*S1*  q»°d  sacenlos, 

people,  instead  of  being  reformed,  are  m^StmVmi    V  ,  efxtlte"t»     S1 

u     i    I  i  i    i   u     it    •  i  pubhcus  fornicator  existat,  a  celebra- 

absolutely  corrupted  by  their  pastors  f.  .  ,    ..  ' 

wo       ii     i  *  t__I    j       i  _j  tione  missarum  abstmeat,  per  tempus 

— "Prout  testatur  nimia  de  plensque  ,.     ...         .      .  ,         '^  .       F" 

regionibus  damans  Christian!  populi  !  mitaM(m  Jure'  et  ?»£***  P^" 
co?ruptela,qu«e  cum  deberet  ex  sacer-  !  Hcosubeatcorporales."  Wilkms,III. 
dot.»li«  antiHAti  nnr«H  m^«li«  inv,.    364-5.)     It  is  not  easy  to  imagine  a 


dotalis  antidoti  curari  medelis,  inva 
lescit  proh  dolor  !  ex  malorum  conta- 
gione  quod  procedit  a  clero."  The 
evil    continued    undiminished.       In 


more  humiliating  confession. 

3  Swiche  preestes  be  the  sones  of 
Hely  .  .  .  hem  thinketh  that  they  be 


1414,  at  the  request  of  Henry  V.,  the  ,  free  and  have  no  juge,  no  more  than 

23 


354 


RESULTS. 


Cantinpre,  indeed,  one  of  the  early  lights  of  the  Domini- 
can order,  is  authority  for  a  legend  which  represents  the 
devil  as  thanking  the  prelates  of  the  church  for  conducting 
almost  all  Christendom  to  hell.1  The  popiilar  feeling  on  the 
subject  perhaps  receives  its  fittest  expression  in  a  satire  on 
the  mendicant  friars,  written  by  a  Franciscan  novice  who  be- 
came disgusted  with  the  order  and  turned  "Wickliffite.  The 
exaggerated  purity  and  mortification  of  the  early  followers 
of  the  blessed  St.  Francis  had  long  since  yielded  to  the  temp- 
tations which  attended  on  the  magnificent  success  of  the  order; 
and  the  asceticism,  which  had  been  powerful  enough  to  cause 
visions  of  the  holy  Stigmata,  degenerated  into  sloth  and  crime 
which  took  advantage  of  the  opportunities  afforded  by  the 
privilege  to  hear  confessions.2 


hath  a  free  boll,  that  taketh  which 
cow  that  him  liketh  in  the  toun.  So 
faren  they  by  women  ;  for  right  as  on 
free  boll  is  y  no  ugh  for  all  a  toun,  right 
so  is  a  wicked  preest  corruption 
ynough  for  all  a  parish,  or  for  all  a 
countree. 

The  demoralization  caused  by  the 
clergy,  in  fact,  was  an  inexhaustible 
subject  of  indignation  or  mockery  with 
the  poets  and  popular  writers.  Thus, 
in  the  earliest  French  pastoral,  "Li 
Gieus  de  Robin  et  de  Marion,"  written 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  occurs  the  following  dia- 
logue : — 

Warmers.     Segneur  je  sui  trop  courechi£s. 
Guios.    Comment? 
Warniers.  Mehales  est  agute, 

M'amie,  et  s'a  est6  dechute  ; 

Car  on  dist  que  ch'est  de  no  prestre. 
Kogads.     En  non  Dieu  !   Warnier,  bien  puet 
estre ; 

Car  ele  i  aloit  trop  souvent. 
Warniers.     H6,  las!  jou  avoie  en  couvent 

De  li  temprement  espouser. 
G0ios.     Tu  te  puts  bien  trop  dolouser, 

Biaus  tres  dous  amis  ;  ne  te  caille, 

Car  ja  ne  meteras  maaille, 

Que  bien  sai,  a  l'enfant  warder. 

(Michel,  Theatre  Francais  au  Moyen 
Age,  p.  129.) 

1  According  to  Thomas  of  Cantinpre, 
this  occurrence  took  place  at  Paris,  in 
a  synod  held  in  1248,  and  Satan  ex- 
plained his  candor  by  saying  that  he 
was  compelled  to  it  by  God. — (Hartz- 
heim,  IX.  663.) 


2  I  cannot  quote  the  grosser  accusa- 
tions, which  are  unfitted  to  the  ideas 
of  modern  decency,  but  the  spirit  in 
which  the  friars  were  regarded  is  suf- 
ficiently indicated  by  the  following 
verses — 

For  when  the  gode  man  is  fro  hame 

And  the  frere  comes  to  oure  dame, 

He  spares,  nautber  for  synne  ne  shame, 

That  he  ne  dos  his  will. 
***** 
Ich  man  tbat  here  shal  lede  his  life 
That  has  a  faire  doghter  or  a  wyfe 
Be  war  that  no  frer  ham  shryfe 

]NTauther  loude  ne  still. 

(Monumenta  Franciscana,  pp.  602- 
4.) 

This  testimony  concerning  the 
Franciscans  is  not  confined  to  heretics 
and  laymen.  About  .the  close  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  a  council  of  Magde- 
burg took  occasion  to  reprove  them  for 
the  dissolute  and  unclerical  mode  of 
life  of  which  they  offered  a  conspicu- 
ous example.  It  appears  that  they 
dignified  with  the  name  of  "  Marthas" 
the  female  companions  who,  in  primi- 
tive ages,  were  known  as  "agapetse," 
and  who  had  latterly  acquired  among 
the  secular  clergy  the  title  of  "  foca- 
rise" — "  et  in  domibus  suis  frequenter 
soli  cum  mulieribus  quas  ipsorum 
Martas  (ut  eorum  verbis  utamur)  ha- 
bitare  non  verentur." — Concil.  Mag- 
deburg, ann.  1403,  Rubr.  de  Pceuis. 
(Hartzheim,  V.  717.) 


DESPERATE    ALTERNATIVES 


355 


When  such  was  the  moral  condition  of  the  priesthood,  and 
such  were  the  influences  which  they  cast  upon  the  flocks 
intrusted  to  their  guidance,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  if  those 
who  deplored  so  disgraceful  a  state  of  things,  and  whose  re- 
spect for  the  canons  precluded  them  from  recommending  the 
natural  and  appropriate  remedy  of  marriage,  should  regard 
an  organized  system  of  concubinage  as  a  safeguard.  How- 
ever deplorable  such  an  alternative  might  be  in  itself,  it  was 
surely  preferable  to  the  mischief  which  the  unquenched  and 
ungoverned  passions  of  a  pastor  might  inflict  upon  his  parish ; 
and  the  instances  of  this  were  too  numerous  and  too  glaring 
to  admit  of  much  hesitation  in  electing  between  the  two 
evils.  Even  Gerson,  the  leader  of  mystic  ascetics,  who  re- 
corded his  unbounded  admiration  for  the  purity  of  celibacy 
in  his  "  Dialogus  Naturae  et  Sophias  de  Castitate  Clericorum," 
saw  and  appreciated  its  practical  evils,  and  had  no  scruple  in 
recommending  concubinage  as  a  preventive,  which,  though 
scandalous  in  itself,  might  serve  to  prevent  greater  scandals.1 
It  therefore  requires  no  great  stretch  of  credulity  to  believe 
the  assertion  of  Sleidan  that,  in  some  of  the  Swiss  Cantons,  it 
was  the  custom  to  oblige  a  new  pastor,  on  entering  upon  his 
functions,  to  select  a  concubine,  as  a  necessary  protection  to 
the  virtue  of  his  female  parishioners,  and  to  the  peace  of  the 
families  intrusted  to  his  spiritual  direction.2  Indeed,  we  have 
already  seen,  on  the  authority  of  the  council  of  Palencia  in 
1322,  that  such  a  practice  was  not  uncommon  in  Spain. 


1  Vel  inexperti  forte  erant  hi  doc- 
tores  quam  generale  et  quam  radfca- 
tum  sit  hoc  malum,  et  quod  deteriora 
fiagitia  circa  uxores  aut  filias  parochi- 
anorum  et  abominationes  horrendae  in 
aliis  provenerint  apud  multas  patrias, 
rebus  stantibus  ut  stant,  si  quseientur 
per  tales  censuras  arceri.  Scandalum 
certe  magnutn  est  apud  parochianos 
curati  ad  concubinam  ingressus,  sed 
longe  deterius  si  erga  parochianas 
suas  non  servaverit  castitatem. — De 
Vita  Spirit.  Animse.  Lect.  iv.  Corol. 
xiv.  prop.  3. 

2  De  Statu.  Relig.  Lib.  i.  (Giannone 
Apolog.  cap.  14.) 


In  1398,  Cardinal  Peter  d'Ailly, 
Bishop  of  Cambrai,  speaks  of  the 
manner  in  which  his  clergy  lived  with 
their  concubines,  as  man  and  wife,  and 
brought  up  their  children  without  con- 
cealment in  their  houses — "tenentes 
secum  in  suis  domibus  suas  concu- 
binas,  et  mulieres  publice  suspectas, 
in  scandalum  plurimorum  cohabitant 
simul  copulati,  eisdem  domo,  mensa,  et 
lecto,  residendo,  acsi  essent  vir  et  uxor 
matrimonialiter  conjuncti  :  proles 
super  terram  gradientes  ex  hujusmodi 
suis  concubinis  susceptas  una  cum 
eisdem  in  suis  domibus  publice  secum 
habendo  et  tenendo."— (Hartzheim, 
VI.  709.) 


356 


RESULTS 


Even  supposing  that  this  fearful  immorality  were  not  attri- 
butable to  the  immutable  laws  of  nature  revenging  themselves 
for  their  attempted  violation,  it  could  readily  be  explained  by 
the  example  set  by  the  central  head.  Scarcely  had  the  efforts 
of  Nicholas  and  Gregory  put  an  end  to  sacerdotal  marriage  in 
Eome  when  the  morals  of  the  Roman  clergy  became  a  dis- 
grace to  Christendom.  How  little  the  results  of  the  reform 
corresponded  with  the  hopes  of  the  zealous  puritans  who  had 
brought  it  about  may  be  gathered  from  the  martyrdom  of  a 
certain  Arnolfo,  who,  under  the  pontificate  of  Honorius  II., 
preached  vehemently  against  the  scandals  and  immorality  of 
the  ecclesiastics  of  the  apostolic  city.  They  succeeded  in 
making  way  with  him,  notwithstanding  the  protection  of 
Honorius,  and  the  veneration  of  the  nobles  and  people  who 
regarded  him  as  a  prophet.1  When  such  was  the  condition 
of  clerical  virtue,  we  can  scarcely  wonder  that  sufficient  suf- 
frages were  given  in  1130  by  the  sacred  college  to  Cardinal 
Pier-Leone  to  afford  him  a  plausible  claim  to  the  papacy, 
although  he  was  notoriously  stained  with  the  foulest  crimes. 
Apparently  his  children  by  his  sister  Tropea,  and  his  carry- 
ing about  with  him  a  concubine  when  travelling  in  the  capa- 
city of  papal  legate,  had  not  proved  a  bar  to  his  elevation  in 
the  church  nor  to  his  employment  in  the  most  conspicuous 
and  important  affairs.2 

What  were  the  influences  of  the  papal  court  in  the  next 
century  may  be  gathered  from  the  speech  which  Cardinal 
Hugo  made  to  the  Lyonese,  on  the  occasion  of  the  departure 
of  Innocent  IV.  in  1251  from  their  city,  after  a  residence  of 
eight  years — "  Friends,  since  our  arrival  here,  we  have  done 
much  for  your  city.  When  we  came,  we  found  here  three  or 
four  brothels.  We  leave  behind  us  but  one.  We  must  own, 
however,  that  it  extends  without  interruption  from  the  east- 
ern to  the  western  gate" — the  crude  cynicism  of  which  greatly 
disconcerted  the  Lyonese  ladies  present.3   Robert  Grosseteste, 


1  Platina  sub  Honor.  II. 

2  Pagi,  Critica  IV.  464. 

3  Aniici  magnam  fecimus  postquam 
in  hanc  urbem  venimus,  utilitatem  et 
eleemosynam.     Quando  enim    primo 


hue  venimus,  tria  vel  quatuor  prosti- 
bula  invenimus.  Sed  nunc  recedentes, 
unum  solum  relinquimus.  Verum 
ipsum  durat  continuatum  ab  Orien- 
tali  porta  civitatis  usque  ad  Occiden- 
talum. — Matt.  Paris  ann.  1251. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  PAPAL  COURT.     357 

Bishop  of  Lincoln,  therefore  only  reflected  the  popular  con- 
viction when,  on  his  deathbed  in  1253,  inveighing  against  the 
corruption  of  the  papal  court,  he  applied  to  it  the  lines — 

Ejus  avaritiae  totus  non  sufficit  orbis, 
Ejus  luxuriae  meretrix  non  sufficit  omnis.1 

A  hundred  years  later  saw  the  popes  again  in  France.  For 
forty  years  they  had  bestowed  on  Avignon  all  the  benefits, 
moral  and  spiritual,  arising  from  the  presence  of  the  Vice- 
gerent of  Christ,  when  Petrarch  recorded,  for  the  benefit  of 
friends  whom  he  feared  to  compromise  by  naming,  the  im- 
pressions produced  by  his  long  residence  there  in  the  house- 
hold of  a  leading  dignitary  of  the  church.  Language  seems 
too  weak  to  express  his  abhorrence  of  that  third  Babylon,  that 
Hell  upon  Earth,  which  could  furnish  no  Noah,  no  Deucalion 
to  survive  the  deluge  that  alone  could  cleanse  its  filth — and 
yet  he  intimates  that  fear  compels  him  to  restrain  the  full  ex- 
pression of  his  feelings.  Chastity  was  a  reproach  and  licen- 
tiousness a  virtue.  The  aged  prelates  surpassed  their  younger 
brethren  in  wickedness  as  in  years,  apparently  considering 
that  age  conferred  upon  them  the  license  to  do  that  from 
which  even  youthful  libertines  shrank ;  while  the  vilest  crimes 
were  the  pastimes  of  pontifical  ease.2.  Juvenal  and  Brantome 
can  suggest  nothing  more  shameless  or  more  foul. 


1  Matt.  Paris  Hist.  Angl.  ann.  1253.  j  libertas  eximia,  et  quo  pollutior  eo 
— The  same  author  preserves  a  le-  l  clarior  vita,  quo  plus  scelerum  eo 
gend  that  when  Innocent    IV.  heard    plus  glorise,  bonum  nomencoeno  vilius, 


of  the  death  of  Grosseteste,  he  order- 
ed a  letter  to  be  prepared  command- 
ing Henry  III.  to  dig  up  and  cast  out 
the  remains  of  the  bishop.  The  fol- 
lowing   night,    however,    Grosseteste 


atque  ultima  mercium  fama  est. 
Taceo  utriusque  pestis  artifices,  et  con- 
cursantes  pontificum  thalamis  proxo- 
naetas  .  .  .  Quis,  oro,  enim  non  iras- 
catur   et    rideat,    illos    senes    pueros 


appeared  in  his  episcopal  robes  and  |  coma  Candida,  togis  amplissimis, 
with  his  crozier  inflicted  a  severe  cas-  j  adeoque  lascivientibus  animis  ut  nihil 
tigation  on  the  vengeful  pope,  who  illuc  falsius  videatur  quam  quod  ait 
thereupon  abandoned  his  unchristian  |  Maro  '  Frigidus  in  Venerem  senior.' 
purpose. — Ibid.-  aim.  1254.  j  Tarn  calidi  tamque  prsecipites  in  Ve- 

nerem senes  sunt,  tanta  eos  setatis  et 


2  Portions  of  Petrarch's  descriptions 
are  unfit  for  transcription  ;  the  follow- 
ing, however,  will  give  a  sufficient  idea 


status  et  virium  capit  oblivio,  sic  in 
libidines    inardescunt,    sic    in    omne 


of  his  impressions.     "Veritas  ibi  de- j  r;mnt   ded?CUS'   <*™\    "■■*»    e°rum 
mentiaest,abstinentia  verorusticitas,  '  Slona  n0I\.m  C[UCe  Chnsti  sit  sed  m 


commessationibus  et  ebrietatibus.  et 


pudicitia  probrura  ingens.     Denique 

peccandi    licentia    magnanimitas    et  i  V"  has  se<luuntur  in  cubilibus,  im- 


358 


RESULTS. 


The  Great  Schism  perhaps  could  scarcely  be  expected  to 
improve  the  morals  of  the  papal  court.  Yet  when  the  church 
universal,  to  close  that  weary  quarrel,  agreed  to  receive  one 
of  the  competitors  as  its  head,  surely  it  might  have  selected, 
as  the  visible  representative  of  God  upon  earth,  some  more 
worthy  embodiment  of  humanity  than  Balthazar  Cossa,  who, 
as  John  XXIII.,  is  alone,  of  the  three  competitors,  recognized 
in  the  list  of  popes.  When  the  great  council  of  Constance 
in  1415  adopted  the  awful  expedient  of  trying,  condemning, 
and  deposing  a  pope,  the  catalogue  of  crimes — notorious  incest, 
adultery,  defilement,  homicide,  and  atheism — of  which  the 
fathers  formally  accused  him,  and  which  he  confessed  without 
defending  himself,1  gives  a  fearful  insight  into  the  corruption 
which  could  not  only  spawn  such  a  monster  but  could  elevate 
him  to  the  highest  place  in  the  hierarchy,  and  present  him 
for  the  veneration  of  Christendom. 

The  latter  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  scarcely  saw  a 
supreme  pontiff  without  the  visible  evidences  of  human 
frailty  around  him,  the  unblushing  acknowledgment  of  which 


pudieitiis :  .  .  .  atque  hoc  unum  se- 
nectutis  ultimae  lucrum  putant,  ea 
facere  quae  juvenes  non  auderent  .  .  . 
Mitto  stupra,  raptus,  incestus,  adul- 
teriaqui  jam  pontificalis  lasciviae  ludi 
sunt,  etc."  (Lib.  sine  Titulo,  Epist. 
xvi.) 

In  his  vii.  Eclogue  Petrarch  de- 
scribes the  cardinals  individually. 
Their  portraits,  though  metaphorically 
drawn,  correspond  with  the  general 
character  of  the  above  extracts.  See 
also  the  Lib.  sine  Titulo  Epist.  vii. 
viii.  ix. 

1  Quod  dominus  Johannes  papa  cum 
uxore  fratris  sui  et  cum  Sanctis  moni- 
alibus  incestum,  cum  virginibus  stu- 
prum,  et  cum  conjugatis  adulterium 
et  alia  incontinentia}  crimina,  propter 
qua?  ira  Dei  descendit  in  filios  diffi- 
dentiae  commisit.  .  .  .  Item  quod 
dictus  dominus  Johannes  papa  fuit 
et  sit  homo  peccator,  notorie  crimi- 
nosus  de  homicidio,  veneficio,  et  aliis 
gravibus  criminibus  quibus  irretitus 
dicitur  graviter  diffamatus,  dissipator 
bonorum  ecclesiae  et  dilapidator 
eorundem,  notorius  sirnoniacus,  per- 


tinax  hsereticus  et  ecclesiam  Christi 
notorie  scandalizans.  Item  quod  dic- 
tus Johannes  Papa  XXIII.  ssepe  et 
ssepius  coram  diversis  prselatis  et  aliis 
honestis  et  probis  viris  pertinaciter, 
diabolo  suadente,  dixit,  asseruit,  dog- 
matizavit  et  adstruxit,  vitam  seternam 
non  esse,  neque  aliam  post  banc,  etc. 
— Concil.  Constantiens.  Sess.  xi. 

Even  supposing  some  of  these 
special  charges  to  have  been  manu- 
factured for  the  purpose  of  effecting 
the  desirable  political  object  of  get- 
ting rid  of  the  objectionable  pontiff, 
yet  the  profound  conviction  of  his 
vileness,  evinced  by  the  proffering  of 
such  accusations,  is  almost  equally 
damaging. 

The  good  fathers  of  the  council  them- 
selves were  apparently  not  all  given  to 
mortifying  the  flesh,  for,  in  a  list  of  the 
multitudes  assembled  at  Constance, 
we  find,  after  an  enumeration  of  the 
numbers  of  cardinals,  bishops,  abbots, 
and  nobles,  "  Item,  fistulatores,  tubi- 
cense,  joculatores,  516  ;  item,  meretri- 
ces,  virgines  publicse,  718." — Laur. 
Byzynii  Diar.  Bell.  Hussit. 


POPES   OF   THE   FIFTEENTH   CENTURY.         359 

is  the  fittest  commentary  on  the  tone  of  clerical  morality. 
The  success  of  Innocent  VIII.  in  increasing  the  population 
of  Eome  was  a  favorite  topic  with  the  wits  of  the  day  ;x  but 
the  epitaph  which  declared  that  filth,  gluttony,  avarice,  and 
sloth  lay  buried  in  his  tomb2  did  not  anticipate  the  immediate 
resurrection  of  the  worst  of  those  vices  in  the  person  of  his 
successor  Alexander  VI.  If  the  crimes  of  Borgia  were  foul, 
their  number  and  historical  importance  have  rendered  them 
so  well  known  that  I  may  be  spared  more  than  a  passing 
allusion  to  a  career  which  has  made  his  name  synonymous 
with  all  that  can  degrade  man  to  a  level  at  once  with  the 
demon  and  the  brute.3 

Such  men  as  Alexander  can  hardly  be  deemed  exceptional, 
save  inasmuch  as  brilliant  talents  and  native  force  of  cha- 
racter might  enable  them  to  excel  their  contemporaries  in  guilt 
as  in  ambition.  They  were  the  natural  product  of  a  system 
which  for  four  centuries  had  bent  the  unremitting  energies  of 
the  church  to  securing  temporal  power  and  wealth,  with  ex- 
emption from  the  duties  and  liabilities  of  the  citizen.  Such 
were  the  fruits  of  the  successful  theocracy  of  Hildebrand, 
which,  intrusting  irresponsible  authority  to  fallible  hu- 
manity, came  to  regard  ecclesiastical  aggrandizement  as  a  full 
atonement  for  all  and  every  crime.  That  the  infection  had 
spread  even  to  the  ultimate  fibres  of  the  establishment  can 
readily  be  believed. 

My  object  has  been  to  consider  the  subject  of  ascetic  celi- 
bacy as  a  portion  simply  of  ecclesiastical  history,  and  yet  I 
cannot  well  conclude  this  section  without  a  hasty  glance  at 
its  influence  on  society  at  large.     That  influence,  as  far  as  the 


i  Innocuo  priscos  aequum  est  debere  Qui-  j  between   him   and   his    daughter  Lu- 

„    rit(?s-     ,  „*_.*-i         i  cretia  were  a  favorite  topic — 

Progeme  exhaustam  restitmt  patnam. 


(Sannazarii  Epigram.  Lib.  i.)  j 

0  Spurcities,  gala,  avaritia,  atque  ignavia 
deses,  . 
Hoc,  Octave,  jacent  quo  tegeris  tumulo. 

(Marulli  Epigram.  Lib.  iv.) 

3  Sannazaro,  as  was  meet  in  a 
Neapolitan,  hated  Alexander  cordi- 
ally, and  was  never  weary  of  assail- 
ing his  wickedness.      The   relations 


Ergo  te  semper  cupiet  Lucretia  Sextus? 
O  fatum  diri  nominis !  hie  pater  est? 

(Sannazar.  Epigr.  Lib.  n.) 

Humana  jura,  nee  mintis  ccelestia, 

Ipsosque  sustulit  Deos: 
Ut  silicet  liceret  (heu  scelus)  patri 

Natse  sinum  permingere, 
Nee  execrandis  abstinere  nuptiis 

Timore  sublato  shnul. 

(Ibid.) 


360  RESULTS. 

secular  clergy  were  its  instruments,  was  evidently  one  of 
almost  unmixed  evil.  The  parish  priest,  if  honestly  ascetic, 
was  thereby  deprived  of  the  wholesome  common  bond  of 
human  affections  and  sympathies,  and  was  rendered  less  effi- 
cient for  good  in  consoling  the  sorrows  and  aiding  the  strug- 
gles of  his  flock.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  was  a  hypocrite, 
or  if  he  had  found  too  late  that  the  burden  he  had  assumed 
was  too  heavy  for  his  strength,  the  denial  of  the  natural  in- 
stitution of  marriage  was  the  source  of  immeasurable  cor- 
ruption to  those  intrusted  to  his  charge,  who  looked  up  to 
him  not  only  as  a  spiritual  director,  but  as  a  superior  being 
who  could  absolve  them  from  sin,  and  whose  partnership  in 
guilt  was  in  itself  almost  an  absolution.  That  such  was  the 
condition  of  innumerable  parishes  throughout  Europe,  there 
is  unfortunately  no  reason  to  doubt.  The  incongruity  of  this 
may  perhaps  explain  to  some  extent  the  anomaly  of  the  prac- 
tical grossness  of  the  Middle  Ages,  combined  with  the  theo- 
retical ascetic  purity  which  was  held  out  as  the  duty  of  every 
Christian  who  desired  to  be  acceptable  to  his  Creator.  The 
curious  contrasts  and  confusion  of  the  standard  of  morality, 
arising  from  this  striving  against  nature,  are  well  illustrated 
by  a  tract  of  the  thirteenth  century  which  has  been  recently 
published. 

This  is  a  homily  against  marriage  addressed  to  youthful 
nuns,  which  exhausts  all  the  arguments  that  the  ingenuity  of 
the  writer  could  suggest.  On  the  one  hand  he  appeals  to  the 
pride  which  could  be  so  well  gratified  by  the  exalted  state  of 
virginity ;  he  pictures  the  superior  bliss  vouchsafed  in  heaven 
to  those  who  were  stained  by  no  earthly  contamination,  con- 
fidently promising  them  a  higher  rank  and  more  direct  com- 
muning with  the  Father  than  would  be  bestowed  on  the 
married  and  the  widowed ;  he  rapturously  dwells  upon  the 
inward  peace,  the  holy  ecstasy  which  are  the  portion  of  those 
who,  wedded  to  Christ,  keep  pure  their  mystic  marriage  vow ; 
and  his  ascetic  fervor  exhausts  itself  in  depicting  the  spiritual 
delights  of  a  life  of  religious  seclusion.  Mingled  inextricably 
with  these  exalted  visions  of  beatific  mysticism,  he  presents 
in  startling  contrasts  the  retribution  awaiting  the  sin  of  licen- 
tiousness and  the  evils  inseparable  from  a  life  of  domestic 


INFLUENCE   OF    MONACHISM. 


361 


With  a  crude  nastiness  that  is  almost  inconceiv- 
able, he  minutely  describes  all  the  discomforts  and  suffering, 
physical  and  mental,  attendant  upon  wifehood  and  maternity, 
entering  into  every  detail  and  gloating  over  every  revolting 
circumstance  that  his  prurient  imagination  can  suggest.  The 
license  of  Shakspeare,  the  plain  speaking  of  Chaucer,  Boc- 
caccio, and  the  medieval  trouveres  show  us  what  our  ances- 
tors were,  and  what  they  were  is  easily  explained  when  such 
a  medley  of  mysticism  and  grossness  could  be  poured  into  the 
pure  ears  of  innocent  young  girls  by  their  spiritual  director.1 


In  considering,  however,  the  influence  of  the  regular  clergy, 
or  monastic  orders,  we  find  a  more  complex  array  of  motives 
and  results.  The  earlier  foundations  of  the  West,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  a  great  extent  neutralized  the  inherent  selfishness  of 
monachism  by  the  regulations  which  prescribed  a  due  pro- 
portion of  labor  to  be  mingled  with  prayer.  The  duty  which 
man  owes  to  the  world  was  to  some  extent  recognized  as  not 


1  Hali  Meidenhad.  (Early  English 
Text  Society,  1866.)  The  author  at 
times  trenches  closely  on  Manicheism. 
It  is  true  that  he  revives,  with  some 
variation,  the  ancient  computation  of 
the  relative  merits  of  the  various  con- 
ditions of  life — "For  wedlock  has  its 
fruit  thirtyfold  in  heaven,  widowhood 
sixtyfold  ;  maidenhood  with  a  hun- 
dredfold overpasses  both"  (p.  22)  ; 
but  while  he  thus  faintly  disavows 
an  intention  to  revile  marriage,  he 
again  and  again  alludes  to  it  as  wick- 
ed and  impure  per  se.  "  Well  were  it 
for  them,  were  they  on  the  day  of 
their  bridal  borne  to  be  buried.  .  .  . 
If  thou  askest  why  God  created  such 
a  thing  to  be,  I  answer  thee  :  God 
created  it  never  such  ;  but  Adam  and 
Eve  turned  it  to  be  such  by  their  sin, 
and  marred  our  nature"  (p   8). 

Virginity  he  asserts  to  be  the  high- 
est attribute  of  humanity,  and  in  hea- 
ven virgins  are  the  equals  of  angels 
and  the  superiors  of  saints. — "  Maid- 
enhood is  a  grace  granted  thee  from 
heaven.  .  .  'Tis  a  virtue  above  all 
virtues,  and  to  Christ  the  mo3t  accept- 
able of  all"  (p.  10).  "To  sing  that 
sweet  song  and  that  heavenly  music 


which  no  saints  may  sing,  but  maid- 
ens only  in  heaven.  .  .  .  But  the 
maiden's  song  is  altogether  unlike 
these,  being  common  to  them  with 
angels.  Music  beyond  all  music  in 
heaven.  In  their  circle  is  God  him- 
self; and  his  dear  mother,  the  pre- 
cious maiden,  is  hidden  in  that  blessed 
company  of  gleaming  maidens,  nor 
may  any  but  they  dance  and  sing" 
(pp.  18-20). 

As  for  matrimony  and  maternity, 
nothing  can  redeem  them  in  the  eyes 
of  the  ascetic. —  "All  other  sins  are 
nothing  but  sins,  but  this  is  a  sin  and 
besides  denaturalizes  thee  and  dis- 
honoreth  thy  body.  It  soileth  thy 
soul  and  maketh  it  guilty  before  God, 
and  moreover  defileth  thy  flesh.  .  .  . 
Now  what  joy  hath  the  mother?  She 
hath  from  the  misshapen  child  sad  care 
and  shame,  both,  and  for  the  thriving 
one  fear,  till  she  lose  it  for  good, 
though  it  would  never  have  been  in 
being  for  the  love  of  God,  nor  for  the 
hope  of  heaven,  nor  for  the  dread  of 
hell"  (p.  34).— But  I  dare  not  fol- 
low him  in  his  more  nauseous  flights 
of  imagination. 


362  RESULTS. 

incompatible  with  the  duty  which  he  owes  to  his  God,  and 
civilization  has  had  few  more  efficient  instruments  than  the 
self-denying  work  of  the  earnest  men  who,  from  Columba  to 
Adalbert,  sowed  the  seeds  of  Christianity  and  culture  among 
the  frontier  lands  of  Christendom.  "When  discipline  such  as 
these  men  inculcated  could  be  enforced,  the  benefits  of  mona- 
chism  far  outweighed  its  evils.  All  the  peaceful  arts,  from 
agriculture  to  music,  owed  to  the  Benedictines  their  preserva- 
tion or  their  advancement,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  esti- 
mate exactly  the  influence  for  good  which  resulted  from 
institutions  to  which  the  thoughtful  and  studious  could  safely 
retire  from  a  turbulent  and  barbarous  world.  These  institu- 
tions, however,  from  their  own  inherent  defects,  carried  in 
them  the  germs  of  corruption.  The  claims  to  supereminent 
sanctity,  which  secured  for  them  the  privileges  of  asylums, 
were  inevitably  used  as  means  for  the  accumulation  of  wealth 
wrung  from  the  fears  or  superstition  of  the  sinner.  With 
wealth  came  the  abandonment  of  labor ;  and  idleness  and 
luxury  were  the  prolific  parents  of  license.  True-hearted 
men  were  not  wanting  to  combat  the  irrepressible  evil.  From 
Chrodegang  to  St.  Vincent  de  Paul,  the  history  of  monachism 
is  full  of  illustrious  names  of  those  who  devoted  themselves 
to  the  mission  of  reforming  abuses  and  restoring  the  ideal  of 
the  perfect  monk,  dead  to  the  seductions  of  the  world,  and 
living  only  to  do  the  work  which  he  deems  most  acceptable 
to  God.  Many  of  these  mistakenly  assumed  that  exaggerated 
mortification  was  the  only  gateway  to  salvation,  and  the  only 
cure  for  the  frightful  immorality  which  pervaded  so  many 
monastic  establishments.  Others,  with  a  truer  insight  into  the 
living  principles  of  Christianity,  sought  to  turn  the  enthu- 
siasm of  their  disciples  to  account  in  works  of  perennial 
mercy  and  charity,  at  a  period  when  no  other  organizations 
existed  for  the  succor  of  the  helpless  and  miserable. 

Yet  when  we  reflect  how  large  a  proportion  of  the  wealth 
and  intellect  of  Europe  was  absorbed  in  the  religious  houses, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  system  was  a  most  cumbrous  and 
imperfect  one,  which  gave  but  a  slender  return  for  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  means  which  it  involved.  Still,  it  was  the  only 
system   existing,  and  possibly   the   only   one  which   could 


RETARDATION   OF    CIVILIZATION.  363 

exist  in  so  rude  a  structure  of  society,  individualized  to  a 
degree  which  destroyed  all  sense  of  public  responsibility, 
and  precluded  all  idea  of  a  state  created  for  the  well-being 
of  its  component  parts.  Thus,  the  monastery  became 
the  shelter  of  the  wayfarer,  and  the  dispenser  of  alms  to 
the  needy.  It  was  the  principal  school  of  the  poor  and 
humble ;  and  while  the  Universities*  of  Oxford  and  Paris 
were  devoting  their  energies  to  unprofitable  dialectics  and 
the  subtle  disputations  of  Aristotelian  logic,  in  thousands 
of  abbey  libraries  quiet  monks  were  multiplying  priceless 
manuscripts,  and  preserving  to  after  ages  the  treasures  of  the 
past.  When  fanciful  asceticism  did  not  forbid  the  healing 
of  the  sick,  monks  labored  fearlessly  in  hospitals  and  pest- 
houses,  and  distributed  among  the  many  the  benefactions 
which  they  had  wrung  from  the  late  repentance  of  the  few. 
As  time  wore  on,  even  the  religious  teaching  of  the  public 
passed  almost  exclusively  into  their  hands,  and  to  the  fol- 
lowers of  Dominic  and  Francis  of  Assisi  the  people  owed 
such  insight  as  they  could  obtain  into  the  promises  of  the 
gospel.  If  the  enthusiasm  which  prompted  labors  so  stre- 
nuous did  not  shrink  from  lighting  the  fires  of  persecution, 
we  must  remember  that  religious  zeal,  accompanied  by  irre- 
sponsible power,  has  one  invariable  history. 

While  thus,  in  various  ways,  the  ascetic  spirit  led  to  insti- 
tutions which  promoted  the  progress  of  civilization,  in  others 
it  necessarily  had  a  directly  opposite  tendency.  Nothing 
contributes  more  strongly  to  the  advance  of  knowledge  and 
of  culture  than  the  striving  for  material  comfort  and  indi- 
vidual advancement  in  worldly  well-being.  Luxury  and 
ambition  thus  have  their  uses  in  stimulating  the  inquiring 
and  inventive  faculties  of  man,  in  rendering  the  forces  of 
nature  subservient  to  our  use,  and  in  softening  the  rugged 
asperities  which  are  incompatible  with  the  regular  adminis- 
tration of  law.  Every  instinct  of  human  nature  has  its 
destined  purpose  in  life,  and  the  perfect  man  is  to  be  found 
in  the  proportionate  cultivation  of  each  element  of  his  cha- 
racter, not  in  the  exaggerated  development  of  those  faculties 
which  are  deemed  primarily  good,  nor  in  the  entire  repres- 
sion of  those  which  are  evil  only  when  their  prominence 


364  RESULTS. 

destroys  the  balance  of  the  whole.  The  ascetic  selected  for 
eradication  one  group  of  human  aspirations,  which  was  the 
most  useful  under  proper  discipline,  and  not  perhaps  the 
worst  even  in  its'  ordinary  excess.  Only  those  who  have 
studied  the  varied  aspects  of  medieval  society  can  rightly 
estimate  the  enormous  influence  which  the  church  possessed, 
in  those  ages  of  faith,  to  mould  the  average  habits  of  thought 
in  any  desired  direction.  It  can  readily  be  seen  that  if  the 
tireless  preaching  of  the  vanity  of  human  things  and  the 
beatitude  of  mortification  occasionally  produced  such  extra- 
vagances as  those  of  the  flagellants,  the  spirit  which  now  and 
then  burst  forth  in  such  eruption  must  have  been  an  element 
of  no  little  power  in  the  forces  which  governed  society  at 
large,  and  must  have  exercised  a  most  depressing  influence 
in  restraining  the  general  advance  of  civilization.  Not  only 
did  it  thus  more  or  less  weigh  down  the  efforts  of  almost 
every  man,  but  the  ardent  minds  that  would  otherwise  have 
been  leaders  in  the  race  of  progress  were  the  ones  most 
likely,  under  the  pervading  spirit  of  the  age,  to  be  the  fore- 
most in  maceration  and  self-denial ;  while  those  who  would 
not  yield  to  the  seduction  were  either  silenced  or  wasted 
their  wisdom  on  a  generation  which  believed  too  much  to 
believe  in  them.  When  idleness  was  holy,  earnest  workers 
had  little  chance. 

It  required  the  unbelief  of  the  fifteenth  century  to  give 
free  rein  to  the  rising  commercial  energies  and  the  craving 
for  material  improvement  that  paved  the  way  for  the  over- 
throw of  ascetic  sacerdotalism.  The  fearful  corruptions  of 
the  church,  which  indirectly  caused  and  accompanied  that 
awakening  of  the  human  mind,  will  be  alluded  to  hereafter 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  movements  leading  to  the 
great  Protestant  Eeformation.  At  present  we  must  turn 
aside  for  a  moment  to  consider  one  or  two  external  develop- 
ments of  the  religious  activity  of  the  Middle  Ages. 


J.I  B  R  \  i 

IN  I  V  KIJSITV   OF 

CALIFORNIA 


XXII. 


THE  MILITARY  ORDERS. 


The  Military  Orders  were  the  natural  expression  of  the 
singular  admixture  of  religious  and  warlike  enthusiasm,  re- 
acting on  each  other,  which  produced  and  was  fostered  by 
the  Crusades.  "When  bishops  considered  that  they  rendered 
a  service  acceptable  to  God  in  leading  vast  hosts  to  slaughter 
the  Paynim,  it  was  an  easy  transition  for  soldiers  to  turn 
monks,  and  to  consecrate  their  swords  to  the  bloody  work  of 
avenging  their  Redeemer. 

When  the  Hospitallers — Knights  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem, 
of  Ehodes,  or  of  Malta — first  emerged  from  their  humble  posi- 
tion of  ministering  to  the  afflictions  of  their  fellow-pilgrims, 
and  commenced  to  assume  a  military  organization  under 
Raymond  du  Puy,  about  the  year  1120,  their  statutes  required 
the  three  ordinary  monastic  vows  of  poverty,  obedience,  and 
chastity.1  In  fact,  they  were  at  first  Benedictines;  but  when 
they  became  numerous  enough  to  form  a  separate  body,  they 
adopted  the  rule  of  St.  Augustine. 

When  the  rule  for  the  Templars — "  Regula  pauperum 
commilitonum  sanctaa  civitatis" — was  adopted  in  1128,  at  the 
council  of  Troyes,  it  contained  no  special  injunction  to  ad- 
minister a  vow  of  celibacy,  but  the  context  shows  that  such 
a  condition  was  understood  as  a  matter  of  course.2     Some 


1  Videlicet  castitatem,  obedientiam 
.  .  .  atque  vivere  sine  proprio. — Sta- 
tut.  Ord.  S.  Johan.  Hierosol.  Tit.  i.  §  1 
(Lunig  Cod.  Ital.  Diplom.  T.  II.  p. 
1743). 

2  Thus  Cap.  lv.  :  "  Hoc  enitn  injus- 
tum  consideramus  ut  cum  fratribus 
Deo  castitatem  prourittentibus  fratres 
hujusmodi  in  una  eademque  domo 
maneant."  Cap.  xvi.  and  lxxii.,  by 
the  latter  of  which  even  the  kiss  of  a 


mother  was  denied  them,  render  evi- 
dent the  extreme  asceticism  which  was 
proposed  by  the  founders  of  the  order. 
(Harduin.T.VI.  P.  n.  pp.  1142,1146.) 
At  a  subsequent  period  we  learn 
that  the  Templar's  oath  of  initiation 
promised  "  obedientiam,  castitatem, 
vivere  sine  proprio,  et  succurrere  terrae 
sanctse  pro  posse  suo." — See  the  pro- 
ceedings against  them  in  1309,  in  Wil- 
kins,  II.  331  et  seq. 


366 


THE    MILITARY    ORDERS. 


little  difficulty  was  evidently  experienced  at  first,  since,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  novices  had  to  be  trained  warriors 
who  must  frequently  have  been  bound  by  family  ties,  and 
whose  education  had  not  been  such  as  to  fit  them  for  the 
restraints  of  their  new  life.  It  is  probable  also  that  the  per- 
petual nature  of  the  obligations  assumed  was  not  easy  to  be 
enforced  upon  the  fierce  members  of  the  brotherhood,  for,  in 
1183,  Lucius  III.,  in  confirming  the  privileges  of  the  order, 
specially  commands  that  no  one  who  enters  it  shall  be  allowed 
to  return  to  the  world.1 

The  history  of  these  two  orders  is  too  well  known  to  re- 
quire it  to  be  traced  minutely  here.  If,  with  the  growth  of 
their  reputation  and  wealth,  the  austere  asceticism  of  their 
early  days  was  lost,  and  if  luxury  and  vice  took  the  place 
of  religious  enthusiasm  and  soldierly  devotion  to  the  Cross, 
they  but  obeyed  the  universal  law  which  in  human  institu- 
tions is  so  apt  to  render  corruption  the  consequence  of  pros- 
perity. One  conclusion  may  be  drawn,  however,  from  the 
proceedings  by  which  the  powerful  order  of  the  Temple  was 
extinguished  at  the  commencement  of  the  fourteenth  century. 
Notwithstanding  the  open  and  scandalous  licentiousness  of 
the  order,  it  is  a  little  singular  that  the  interminable  articles 
of  accusation  against  the  members  contain  no  allusion  to  un- 
chastity,  while  crimes  most  fantastic,  practices  most  beastly, 
and  charges  most  frivolous  are  heaped  upon  them  in  strange 
confusion.2  As  the  object  of  those  who  conducted  the  prosecu- 
tion was  to  excite  a  popular  abhorrence  that  would  justify  the 
purposed  spoliation,  it  is  evident  that  the  simple  infraction  of 
vows  of  chastity  was  regarded  as  so  venial  a  fault  and  so  much 
a  matter  of  course  that  its  proof  could  in  no  way  serve  the 
end  of  rousing  indignation  against  the  accused. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  the  same  century  which  saw 
the  foundation  of  the  orders  of  the  Hospital  and  Temple  also 
witnessed  one  which,  although  bound  by  the  rule  of  St.  Au- 
gustine, and  subjected  to  the  ordinary  vows  of  obedience, 
property  in  common,  and  inability  to  return  to  the  world,  yet 


1  Post  factara  in  vestra  militia  pro- 
fessioneni  et  habitum  religionis  as- 
sumption revertendi  ad  szeculum  nul- 


lam  habere  prsecipimus  facultatem. — 
Rymer,  Foedera,  I.  55. 

2  Wilkins,  II.  331-2.— Raynouard 
Condamnation  des  Templiers,  p.  83. 


SPANISH    MARRIED    ORDERS.  367 

allowed  to  its  members  the  option  of  selecting  either  marriage 
or  celibacy.  This  was  the  Spanish  Order  of  St.  James  of  the 
Sword.  What  we  have  seen  of  the  want  of  respect  paid 
by  the  Spanish  church  to  asceticism  may  lessen  surprise  at 
the  founding  of  an  order  based  upon  such  regulations,  yet 
it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  so  great  a  violation  of  estab- 
lished principles  could  be  sanctioned  by  Alexander  III.,  who 
confirmed  the  order  in  1175, x  or  by  Innocent  III.  and  Hono- 
rius  III.,  who  formally  approved  their  privileges.2  Perhaps 
these  military  vassals  of  the  pope,  to  whom  they  were  bound 
in  implicit  obedience  as  their  head,  were  too  important  a 
source  of  power  and  influence  to  be  lightly  rejected.  Per- 
haps, also,  Honorius  III.  may  have  quieted  his  conscience 
when,  in  confirming  their  charters  in  1223,  he  commanded 
that  their  principal  care  and  watchfulness  should  be  devoted 
to  seeing  that  those  who  were  married  preserved  conjugal 
fidelity,  and  that  those  who  elected  a  single  life  maintained 
inviolable  chastity. 

The  example  was  one  of  evil  import  in  the  Peninsula. 
During  the  universal  license  of  the  fifteenth  century,  when 
ascetic  vows  became  a  mockery,  and  the  profligacy  of  those 
who  took  them  exposed  all  such  observances  to  contempt, 
Eugenius  IY.  released  the  -ancient  and  renowned  Order  of 
Calatrava  from  the  obligation  of  celibacy,  for  reasons  which 
would  have  led  him  to  extend  the  privilege  of  marriage  to 
the  whole  church,  had  the  purity  of  ecclesiastics  been  truly 
the  object  of  the  rule.  He  recounts  with  sorrow  the  disor- 
derly lives  of  the  knights,  and,  quoting  the  text  which  says 
that  it  is  better  to  marry  than  to  burn,  he  grants  the  privilege 
of  marriage  because  he  deems  it  preferable  to  live  with  a  wife 
than  with  a  mistress.3  How  could  he  avoid  applying  his  own 
reasoning  to  the  church  in  general  ? 


1  Alexandri  III.  Epist.  Append.  Hi.  apud  Deuni  et  homines  reprehendi 
No.  20  (Harduin.  VI.  P.  n.  p.  1557).    j  possent,  et   cum   secundum  Apostoli 

OT)  ,,     .        ,  i«nn  •»     a  \  sententiam  melius  esset  nubere  quam 

2  Raynald.  Annal.  ann.  1210,  No.  6,        .     .  ,       ,  .      ,.,. 

„  J  tooo  at     ka  i  Ac\a\r    oo     U1>1j  visum  est  nobis  utilius  cum  uxore 

7 ;  ann.  1223, No. 54:  ann.l49b,No.33.      .  '  .  .     ,»         ,,. 

'  '  '  '  vivere  quam  cum  meretnce  (Ray naldi 

3  Concessimus  ut  illius  ordinis  pro-  Annal.  ann.  1441,  No.  20). — The  Order 
fessio  non  contineret  castitatis  votum  of  Calatrava  was  under  the  strictest 
.  .  .  audiehamus  praeterea  multos  in-  of  the  rules,  the  Cistercian.  (Griusti- 
honeste  vivere,  et  ea  agere  quse  merito  I  niani  Ordini  Militari  s.  v.) 


368  THE    MILITARY   ORDERS. 

Similar  arguments  were  employed  to  extend  the  same  privi- 
lege to  the  Orders  of  Avis  and  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  Portugal. 
The  former  was  founded  in  1147  by  Alphonso  I.,  under  the 
Cistercian  rule,  and  chastity  was  one  of  its  fundamental  obli- 
gations;1 the  latter  was  the  continuation  of  the  order  of  the 
Temple,  which,  preserved  in  Portugal  by  the  humanity  of 
King  Dionysius,  assumed  in  the  fourteenth  century  the  name 
of  Jesus.  Both  institutions  became  incurably  corrupted ;  their 
preceptories  were  dens  of  avowed  and  scandalous  prostitution, 
and  their  promiscuous  amours  filled  the  kingdom  with  hate 
and  dissension.  When  at  length,  in  1496,  King  Emanuel 
applied  to  Alexander  VI.  to  grant  the  privilege  of  marriage, 
in  hopes  of  reforming  the  orders,  it  is  interesting  to  observe 
how  instinctively  the  minds  of  men  turned  to  this  as  the  sole 
efficient  remedy  for  the  immorality  which  all  united  in  attri- 
buting to  the  hopeless  attempt  to  enforce  a  purity  impossible 
in  the  existing  condition  of  society.  Alexander  assented  to 
the  request,  and  bestowed  on  the  orders  the  right  of  marriage 
on  the  same  conditions  as  those  enjoined  on  the  Knights  of 
St.  James  of  the  Sword.2 

There  was  another  Portuguese  order  of  a  somewhat  differ- 
ent character.  Twenty  years  after  founding  the  Knights  of 
Avis,  Alphonso  I.,  in  1167,  to  commemorate  his  miraculous 
victory  over  the  Moors  at  Santarem,  instituted  the  Order  of 
St.  Michael.  The  knights  were  allowed  to  marry  once;  if 
widowed,  they  were  obliged  to  embrace  celibacy;  and  the 
Abbot  of  Alcobaga,  who  was  the  superior  of  the  Order,  was 
empowered  to  excommunicate  them  for  irregularity  of  life, 


1  Quibus  munus  sit  religionem  de-  I  eis  cohabitare,  et  etiam  adulteria  cum 
fendere  in  hello,  charitatem  exercere  !  aliis  mulieribus  conjugates  committere 


in  pace,  castitatem  servare  in  toro 
Reg.  Ord.  Mil.  Avisii  a  B.  Joanne  Ci- 
rita  edita  (Migne's  Patrologia,  T.  188, 
p.  1669). 

2  Alexander's  Bull  declares  that 
"  Milites  dictarum  niilitiarum  pro  ma- 
jori  parte,  continents  et  castitatis 
voto,  qui  in  eoruna  professione  emit- 
tunt,  contempto,  concubinas  etiam  -, 
plures,  et  in  eorum  ac  pneceptoriarnm  I  ?™"*!  ™  !?    ?       °!  ^ 

etprioratum  dictarum  militiarurn  pro-  I  institution,  opened  the  door  to  un- 
priis  domibus  et  locis,  non  sine  magno  |  ™*JS  member3>  and  dissipated  their 
religionis  opprobrio,  publice  tenere  et  ]  P10Pei  J* 


non  verentur:  ex  quo  ab  eorundem  reg- 
norum  incoliset  habitatoribusmaximo 
odio  habentur,  dissensiones  et  inimi- 
citise  oriuntur,  diversa  scandala  quo- 
tidie  concitantur  etc." — Raynaldi  An- 
nal.  aim.  1496,  No.  33. 

Raynaldus  quotes  a  passage  from 
Osorius  to  the  effect  that  this  greatly 
lowered   the  character  of  the  orders. 


TEUTONIC   KNIGHTS.  369 

to  compel  them  to  give  up  their  mistresses.  They  were 
moreover  bound  to  perform  the  same  religious  exercises  as 
lay  brothers  of  the  Cistercians.  The  Order  is  interesting  as 
forming  a  curious  link  between  the  secular,  religious,  and 
military  elements  of  the  period.1 

During  all  this,  the  knights  of  St.  John  adhered  to  their 
ancient  statutes,  and  endeavored  from  time  to  time  to  reform 
the  profligacy  which  seemed  inseparable  from  the  institution. 
When  the  ascetic  Antonio  Fluviano,  who  held  the  grand 
mastership  from  1421  to  1437,  promulgated  a  regulation  that 
any  one  guilty  of  public  concubinage  should  receive  three 
warnings,  with  severe  penalties  for  contumacy,2  it  suggests  a 
condition  of  morals  by  no  means  creditable  to  the  brethren. 
So,  a  century  later,  the  stern  Villiers  de  l'Isle-Adam  was 
forced  to  declare  that  any  one  openly  acknowledging  an  ille- 
gitimate child  should  be  forever  after  incapacitated  for  office, 
benefice,  or  dignity.3  "What  the  knights  were  soon  afterwards, 
the  scandalous  pages  of  Brantome  sufficiently  attest. 

The  Marian  or  Teutonic  Order,  perhaps  the  most  wealthy 
and  powerful  of  all,  was  founded  in  1190,  and  adopted  the 
rule  of  the  Templars  as  regards  its  religious  government, 
with  that  of  the  Hospitallers  to  regulate  its  duties  of  charity 
and  hospitality.  Transferred  from  the  Holy  Land  to  North- 
eastern Germany,  it  bore  a  prominent  part  in  Christianizing 
those  regions,  and  what  it  won  by  the  sword  it  retained 
possession  of  in  its  own  right.  With  wealth  came  indolence 
and  luxury,  and  its  history  offers  nothing  of  special  interest 
to  us  until,  in  1525,  the  grand  master  Albert  of  Brandenburg 
went  over  to  Lutheranism  with  many  of  his  knights,  founded 
the  hereditary  dukedom  of  Prussia,  and  married — of  which 
more  hereafter.  Those  of  the  order  who  adhered  to  Catholi- 
cism maintained  the  organization  on  the  rich  possessions 
which  the  piety  of  ages  had  bestowed  upon  them,  through- 
out Germany,  until  this  worn-out  relic  of  the  past  disappeared 
in  the  convulsions  of  the  Napoleonic  wars. 


1  Patrologia,  T.  188,  p.  1674. 

2  Statut.  Ord.  S.  Johan.  Hierosol.  Tit.  xvm.  §  50. 
»  Ibid.  Tit.  xvm.  §  51. 

24 


XXIII. 


THE  HERESIES. 


Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  the  introduction  of 
Manicheism  into  Western  Europe  through  Bulgaria  and 
Lombardy.  Notwithstanding  its  stern  and  unrelenting  sup- 
pression wherever  it  was  discovered  during  the  eleventh  and 
twelfth  centuries,  its  votaries  multiplied  in  secret.  The  dis- 
orders of  the  clergy,  their  oppression  of  the  people,  and  their 
quarrels  with  the  nobles  over  their  temporal  possessions, 
made  them  many  enemies  among  the  laity  ;  and  the  simplicity 
of  the  Manichean  belief,  its  freedom  from  aspirations  for 
temporal  aggrandizement,  and  its  denunciations  of  the  immo- 
rality and  grasping  avidity  of  the  priesthood,  found  for  it  an 
appreciative  audience  and  made  ready  converts.  Towards 
the  close  of  the  twelfth  century  the  South  of  France  was 
discovered  to  be  filled  with  heretics,  in  wrhom  the  names  of 
Cathari,  Paterins,  Albigenses,  &c,  concealed  the  more  odious 
appellation  of  Manicheans. 

It  is  not  our  province  to  trace  out  in  detail  the  bloody 
vicissitudes  of  Dominic's  Inquisition  and  Simon  de  Montfort's 
crusades.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  indicate  the 
identity  of  the  Albigensian  belief  with  that  of  the  ancient 
sect  which  we  have  seen  to  exercise  so  powerful  an  influence 
in  moulding  and  encouraging  the  asceticism  of  the  early 
church.  The  Dualistic  principle  was  fully  recognized.  No 
necessit}'  was  regarded  as  justifying  the  use  of  meat,  or  even 
of  eggs  and  cheese,  or  in  fact  of  anything  which  had  its  origin 
in  animal  propagation.  Marriage  was  an  abomination  and  a 
mortal  sin,  which  could  not  be  intensified  by  adultery  or 
other  excesses.1 


1  Communis  opinio  Catharorum  est 
quod  matrimonium  carnale  fuit  sem- 
per  mortale  peccatum,  et  quod   non 


punietur  quis  gravius  in  futuro  prop- 
ter adulterium  vel  incestum  quam 
propter    legitimum    conjugium,    nee 


ANTISACERDOTALISM THE    ALBIGENSES.       371 

The  Catholic  polemics,  in  controverting  the  exaggerated 
asceticism  of  these  heretics,  had  a  narrow  and  difficult  path  to 
tread.  Their  own  authorities  had  so  exalted  the  praises  of 
virgin  purity,  that  it  was  not  easy  to  meet  the  arguments  of 
those  who  merely  carried  out  the  same  principle  somewhat 
further,  in  fearlessly  following  out  the  premises  to  their  logi- 
cal conclusion.1  There  is  extant  a  curious  tract,  being  a  dia- 
logue between  a  Catholic  and  a  Paterin,  in  which  the  latter 
of  course  has  the  worst  of  the  disputation,  yet  he  presses  his 
adversary  hard  with  the  texts  which  were  customarily  cited 
by  the  orthodox  advocates  of  clerical  celibacy — "  qui  habent 
uxores  sint  tanquam  non  habentes,"  "  qui  non  reliquerit 
uxorem  et  filios  propter  me  non  est  me  dignus,"  &c. ;  and  the 
Catholic  can  only  elude  their  force  by  giving  to  them  meta- 
phorical explanations  very  different  from  those  which  of  old 
had  been  assumed  in  the  canons  requiring  the  separation  of 
man  and  wife  on  ordination.2 

The  stubborn  resistance  of  the  Albigenses  to  the  enormous 
odds  brought  against  them,  shows  the  unconquerable  vitality 
of  the  antisacerdotal  spirit  which  was  then  so  widely  diffused 


etiarn  inter  eos  propter  hoc  aliquis  nuptias  damnat"  (In  Cantica  Serm, 
gravius  puniretur. — Summa  F.  Reni-  Ixvi.  §  3),  he  did  not  pause  to  reflect 
eri  (Martene  et  Durand.  V.  1761).  how  severe  a  sentence  he  was  passing 
This  Regnier  descrihes  himself  as  a  on  the  saints  of  the  fifth  century  who, 
heresiarch  previous  to  his  conversion,  as  we  have  seen,  would  only  admit 
and  his  summary  of  the  creed  of  his  marriage  to  he  a  pardonable  offence, 
former  associates  may  be  regarded  as        ,  -..  .    ,   .      „  Al    ,      .  „  ,     . 

correct  in  the  main,  though  perhaps        '  *&**-  *J*f  Cat  10J;  ?  *•*"*"• 
somewhat    heightened    in    repulsive-    c.  n.  (Marteneet  Durand.  V.  1/12-13). 
r  It  is  somewhat  singular  that  Ma- 

'  nicheism  should  have  been  attributed 
1  Bishop  Gerard,  of  Cambrai,  con-  to  a  sect  of  heretics  in  Bosnia  who 
fesses  this  in  his  refutation  of  the  styled  themselves  Christians,  and  who 
Artesian  Manicheana  in  1025 — "  De  were  brought  back  to  the  fold  in  1203 
quibus  nos  responsuros  quodam  dis-  by  a  legate  of  Innocent  III.  It  would 
cretionis  gubernaculo  nostri  sermonis  appear  that,  so  far  from  entertaining 
carinam  subire  oportet,  ne  quasi  inter  Manichean  doctrines,  neglect  of  eccle- 
duos  scopulos  naufragium  incurrentes,  siastical  celibacy  was  actually  one  of 
occasionein  dermis  in  alterutrum,  scili-  their  erroneous  practices,  for  in  their 
cetautomnesindiscrete a conjugiisex-  pledge  of  reformation  they  promise 
terrendo,  aut  omnes  indiscrete  ad  con-  '  that  separation  of  man  and  wife  shall 
nubia  commonendo." — Conoil.  Atre-  thenceforth  be  enforced  "neque  de 
batens.  aim.  1025,  cap.  x.  (Hartzheim,  ,  csetero  recipiemus  aliquem  vel  ali- 
JII.  S9).  I  quam    conjugatam,  nisi   mutuo  con- 

When  St.  Bernard,  in  his  fierj  de-    sensu,    continentia    promissa,    ambo 
nunciation  of  the   Manichean  errors,    pariterconvertantur." — Batthyaui,II. 
exclaimed,    "  non  advertant   qualiter   293. 
omni  immunditise  laxat  habenas  qui  I 


372 


THE    HERESIES. 


throughout  Southern  Europe.  In  a  different  shape  it  had 
already  manifested  itself  during  the  first  half  of  the  twelfth 
century,  when  Pierre  de  Bruys  infected  all  the  South  of 
France  with  the  heresy  called,  after  him,  the  Petrobrusian. 
This  was  an  uncompromising  revolt  against  the  whole  system 
of  Eoman  Christianity.  It  not  only  abrogated  paedo-baptism, 
and  promulgated  heretical  notions  respecting  the  Eucharist, 
but  it  abolished  the  visible  symbols  and  ceremonies  which 
formed' so  large  a  portion  of  the  sacerdotal  fabric — churches, 
crucifixes,  chanting,  fasting,  gifts  and  offerings  for  the  dead, 
and  even  the  mass.  But  little  is  known  respecting  the  Petro- 
brusians,  except  what  can  be  derived  from  the  refutation  of 
their  errors  by  Peter  the  Yenerable.  He  says  nothing  spe- 
cifically respecting  their  views  upon  ascetic  celibacy,  but  we 
may  assume  that  this  was  one  of  the  doctrinal  and  practical 
corruptions  which  they  assailed,  from  a  passage  in  which, 
describing  their  excesses,  he  complains  of  the  public  eating 
of  flesh  on  Passion  Sunday,  the  cruel  flagellation  of  priests, 
the  imprisonment  of  monks,  and  their  being  forced  to  marry 
by  threats  and  torments.1  The  controversial  talents  of  Peter 
the  Venerable  were  not  the  only  means  brought  to  the  sup- 
pression of  this  formidable  heresy.  De  Bruys  was  burned 
at  the  stake  in  1146,  and,  though  his  disciple  Henry  main- 
tained the  contest  for  awhile,  persecution  finally  triumphed. 

In  Britanny,  about  the  same  period,  there  existed  an  ob- 
scure sect  concerning  whom  little  is  known,  except  that  they 
were  probably  a  branch  of  the  Petrobrusians.  Their  errors 
were  nearly  the  same,  and  the  slender  traces  left  of  them 
show  that  their  doctrine  was  a  protest   against   the   over- 


1  Die  ipso  passionis  Dominica?  pub- 
lice  carnes  eomestse,  sacerdotes  flagel- 
lati,  ruonachi  incarcerati  et  ad  ducen- 
das  uxores  terroribus  sunt  ac  tor- 
mentis  compulsi. — S.  Petri  Venerab. 
contra  Petrobrusian. 

In  1144,  the  church  of  Liege  ad- 
dressed to  Lucius  II.  a  letter  con- 
cerning a  heresy  recently  discovered 
in  that  city,  which  is  probably  a 
branch  of  the  Petrobrusian.  It  is 
described  as  originating  near  Monte- 
limart  in   Dauphine,  and   pervading 


all  France  and  the  neighboring  re- 
gions. Its  sectaries  denied  the  effi- 
cacy of  baptism,  the  Eucharist,  and 
the  imposition  of  hands  ;  rejected  not 
only  all  oaths  and  vows,  but  marriage 
itself,  and  denied  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
could  be  gained  except  through  the 
agency  of  good  works.  These  here- 
tics, however,  had  not  in  them  the 
spirit  of  martyrdom,  and  speedily 
recanted  on  being  discovered. — Epist. 
ad  Lucium  Papam,  Epist.  iv.  (Patro- 
log.  T.  179,  p.  957). 


ANTISACERDOTALISM PETROBRUSIANS. 


373 


whelming  sacerdotalism  of  the  period.  The  papal  legate, 
Hugh,  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  sought  to  convert  them  by  an 
elaborate  denunciation  of  their  tenets,  among  which  he  enu- 
merates promiscuous  licentiousness  and  disregard  of  clerical 
celibacy.  Daniel,  he  gravely  assures  them,  symbolizes  vir- 
ginity; Noah,  continence;  and  Job,  marriage.  Then,  quot- 
ing Ezekiel  xiv.  13-20,  wherein  Jehovah,  threatening  the 
land  with  destruction,  says,  "Though  these  three  men,  Noah, 
Daniel,  and  Job,  were  in  it,  they  should  deliver  but  their 
own  souls  through  their  righteousness,"  he  proceeds  trium- 
phantly to  the  conclusion  that  recantation  alone  can  save  his 
adversaries  from  the  fate  which  their  errors  have  deserved.1 

Connected  in  some  way  with  these  movements  of  insubor- 
dination, was  probably  the  career  of  the  singular  heresiarch, 
£on  de  l'feoile.  During  one  of  the  epidemics  of  maceration 
and  fanaticism  which  form  such  curious  episodes  in  medieval 
history,  £on,  born  of  a  noble  Breton  family,  abandoned  him- 
self to  the  savage  life  of  a  hermit  in  the  wilderness.  Drawn 
by  a  vision  to  attend  divine  service,  his  excited  mysticism 
caught  the  words  which  ended  the  recitation  of  the  collect, 
"Per  eum  qui  venturus  est  judicare  vivos  et  mortuos;"  and 
the  resemblance  of  "  eum"  with  his  own  name  inspired  him 
with  the  revelation  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  Men's 
minds  were  ready  for  any  extravagance,  and  £on  soon  had 
disciples  who  adored  him  as  a  deity  incarnate.  Nothing  can 
be  wilder  than  the  tales  which  are  related  of  him  by  eye- 
witnesses— the  aureole  of  glory  which  surrounded  him,  the 
countless  wealth  which  was  at  the  disposal  of  his  followers, 


1  Omnes  ergo  qui  per  istos  tres 
designantur,  per  Danielem  virgines, 
per  Noe  continentes,  et  per  Job  con- 
juges,  pro  sua  justitia  salvantur. 
Cseteri  hominum  qui  de  aliquo  isto- 
rum  trium  ordine  nullatenus  sunt, 
vel  ab  eis  apostatando  recidunt,  mala 
imminentia  atque  proraerita  non  eva- 
dunt.  —  Hugon.  Rothomag.  contra 
Haeret.  Lib.  in.  cap.  vi.  This  is  by 
no  means  an  unusual  specimen  of 
the  inconsequential  character  of  me- 
dieval polemics.  Archbishop  Hugh 
was  a  man  of  mark  among  his  con- 


temporaries, both  as  a  theologian  and 
as  a  statesman.  It  was  he  who,  in 
1139,  at  the  council  of  Winchester, 
saved  King  Stephen  from  excommu- 
nication by  the  English  bishops. 
(Willelmi  Malmesb.  Hist.  Novell. 
Lib.  ii.  §  26.)  For  a  somewhat  simi- 
lar specimen  of  fanciful  theology,  the 
reader  may  consult  the  exposition  of 
the  esoteric  meaning  of  the  plagues 
of  Egypt  by  St.  Martin  of  Leon,  a 
writer  of  the  twelfth  century. — S. 
Martin.  Legionens.  Serm.  xv. 


374  THE   HERESIES. 

the  rich  but  unsubstantial  banquets  which  were  served  at  his 
bidding  by  invisible  hands,  the  superhuman  velocity  of  his 
movements  when  eluding  those  who  were  bent  upon  his  cap- 
ture. £on  declared  war  upon  the  churches  which  monopo- 
lized the  wealth  of  the  people  while  neglecting  the  duties  for 
which  they  had  been  enriched ;  and  he  pillaged  them  of  their 
treasures,  which  he  distributed  lavishly  to  the  poor.  At  last 
the  Devil  abandoned  his  protege.  £on,  when  his  time  had 
come,  was  easily  taken  and  carried  before  Eugenius  III.  at 
the  Council  of  Eouen,  in  1148.  There  he  boldly  proclaimed 
his  mission  and  his  power.  Exhibiting  a  forked  staff  which 
he  carried,  he  declared  that  when  he  held  it  with  the  fork 
upwards,  God  ruled  heaven  and  hell,  and  he  governed  the 
earth;  but  that  when  he  reversed  its  position,  then  he  had 
at  command  two -thirds  of  the  universe,  and  left  only  the 
remaining  third  to  God.  He  was  pronounced  hopelessly 
insane,  but  even  this  would  not  have  saved  him  had  not  his 
captor,  the  Archbishop  of  Eheims,  represented  that  his  life 
had  been  pledged  to  him  on  his  surrender.  He  was,  there- 
fore, delivered  to  Suger,  Abbot  of  St.  Denis,  to  be  imprison- 
ed, and  he  soon  afterwards  died.  Even  this  did  not  shake 
the  faith  of  his  disciples.  Many  of  them,  in  their  fierce 
fanaticism,  preferred  the  stake  to  recantation,  and  numbers 
of  them  were  thus  put  to  death  before  the  sect  could  be  ex- 
tinguished.1 

When,  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  the  sudden 
death  of  a  companion  so  impressed  Peter  Waldo  of  Lyons 
that  he  distributed  his  fortune  among  the  poor,  and  devoted 
himself  to  preaching  the  supereminent  merits  of  poverty, 
nothing  was  further  from  his  thoughts  than  the  founding  of 
a  new  heresy.  Ardent  disciples  gathered  around  him,  dis- 
seminating his  views,  which  spread  with  rapidity;  but  their 
intention  was  to  establish  a  society  within  the  church,  and 
they  applied,  between  1181  and  1185,  to  Lucius  III.  for  the 


1  Guillielm.  Neubrig.  (Harduin.  |  tinuat.  Gemblac.  arm.  1146. — Ejus- 
Concil.  T.  VI.  P.  ii.  p.  1306). —  dem  Continuat.  Prremonstrat.  ann. 
OttonisFrising.  deGest.  Frid.  I.  Lib.  i.  114S. — Roberti  de  Monte  Chron.  arm. 
cap.  liv.  lv.—  Sigeberti  Chron.   Con- 1  1148. 


ANTISACERDOTALISM THE   WALDENSES.       375 

papal  authorization.  Lucius,  however,  took  exception  to 
their  going  barefoot,  to  their  neglect  of  the  tonsure,  and  to 
their  retaining  the  society  of  women.  They  were  stubborn, 
and  he  condemned  them  as  heretics.1  The  enthusiasm  which 
the  church  might  have  turned  to  so  much  account,  as  it  sub- 
sequently did  that  of  the  Franciscans  and  Dominicans,  was 
thus  diverted  to  unorthodox  channels,  and  speedily  arrayed 
itself  in  opposition.  The  beginning  of  revolt  is  shown  in 
the  Nobla  Leyczon,  written  probably  but  a  few  years  after 
this,  which  declares  that  all  the  popes,  cardinals,  bishops,  and 
abbots  together  cannot  obtain  pardon  for  a  single  mortal  sin; 
thus  leading  directly  to  the  conclusion  that  no  intercessor 
could  be  of  avail  between  God  and  man — 

Tuit  li  papa  que  foron  de  Silvestre  entro  en  aquest, 
Et  tuit  11  cardinal  et  tuit  li  vesque  e  tuit  li  aba, 
Tuit  aquisti  ensemp  non  han  tan  de  potesta, 
Que  ilh  poissan  perdonar  un  sol  pecca  mortal. 
Solament  Dio  perdona,  que  autre  non  ho  po  far.2 

Still,  they  did  not  even  yet  consider  themselves  as  sepa- 
rated from  the  church,  for  they  consented  to  submit  their 
peculiar  doctrines  to  the  chances  of  a  disputation,  presided 
over  by  an  orthodox  priest.  Of  course,  the  decision  went 
against  them,  and  a  portion  of  the  "Poor  men  of  Lyons" 
submitted  to  the  result.  The  remainder,  however,  main- 
tained their  faith  as  rigidly  as  ever.  From  Bernard  de  Font- 
Cauld,  who  records  this  disputation,  and  from  Alain  cle  l'Isle, 
another  contemporary,  who  wrote  in  confutation  of  their 
errors,  we  have  a  minute  account  of  their  peculiarities  of 
belief.  Their  principal  heresy  was  a  strict  adherence  to  the 
Hildebrandine  doctrine  that  neither  reverence  nor  obedience 
was  due  to  priests  in  mortal  sin,  whose  ministrations  to  the 


1  Conrad.  Urspergens.  ami.  1212. —  j  2  Quoted  by  Schmidt,  Histoire  des 
"  Hoc  quoque  probrosum  in  eis  vide-  Cathares,  II.  288.— Schmidt,  I  think, 
batur,  quod  viri  et  mulieres  simul  proves  satisfactorily  that  the  Nobla 
ambulabant  in  via,  et  plerumque  si-  Leyczon  dates  from  near  the  end  of 
mul  manebant  in  una  domo,  ut  de  eis  the  twelfth  century,  and  also  that  the 
diceretur,  quod  quandoque  simul  in  antiquity  claimed  for  their  church  by 
lectulis  accubabant."  The  follies  of  the  Vaudois,  as  descended  from  the 
the  early  Christians  were  doubtless  Leonistse,  through  Claudius  of  Turin, 
imitated  by  the  new  sectaries.  has  no  foundation  in  fact,  though  ad- 

i  mitted  by  many  modern  writers. 


376  THE    HERESIES. 

living  and  whose  prayers  for  the  dead  were  equally  to  be 
despised.  In  the  existing  condition  of  sacerdotal  morals,  this 
necessarily  destroyed  all  reverence  for  the  church  at  large,  and 
Bernard  and  Alain  had  no  hesitation  in  proving  it  to  be  most 
dangerously  heterodox.  Their  recurrence  to  Scripture,  more- 
over, as  the  sole  foundation  of  Christian  belief,  with  the  claim 
of  private  interpretation,  was  necessarily  destructive  to  all  the 
forms  of  sacerdotalism,  and  led  them  to  entertain  many  other 
heretical  tenets.  They  admitted  no  distinction  between 
clergy  and  laity.  Every  member  of  the  sect,  male  or  female, 
was  a  priest,  entitled  to  preach  and  to  hear  confessions.  Pur- 
gatory was  denied,  and  the  power  of  absolution  derided. 
Lying  and  swearing  were  mortal  sins,  and  homicide  was  not 
excusable  under  any  circumstances.1 

Such  doctrines  could  only  result  in  open  revolt  against 
sacerdotalism  in  general,  and  it  shortly  came.  The  Wal- 
densian  exaltation  of  poverty  was  grateful  to  the  nobles,  who 
were  eager  to  grasp  the  possessions  of  the  church;  its  con- 
demnation of  the  pride  and  immorality  of  the  clergy  secured 
for  its  sectaries  the  goodwill  of  the  people,  who  everywhere 
suffered  from  the  oppression  and  vices  of  their  pastors. 
Under  such  protection  the  sect  multiplied  with  incredible 
rapidity,  not  only  throughout  France,  but  in  Italy  and  Ger- 
many. Enveloped,  with  the  Albigenses,  in  merciless  perse- 
cution, they  endured  with  fortitude  the  extremity  of  martyr- 
dom. The  Germans  and  Italians  sought  refuge  in  the 
recesses  of  the  Alpine  valleys,  while  some  feeble  remnants 
managed  to  maintain  an  obscure  existence  in  Provence. 
Their  tacit  revolt,  however,  could  not  be  forgotten  or  for- 
given, and  at  intervals  they  were  exposed  to  pitiless  attempts 
at  extermination.  These  are  well  known,  and  the  names  of 
Cabrieres  and  Merindol  have  acquired  a  sinister  notoriety 
which  renders  further  allusion  to  the  Waldenses  unnecessary, 
except  to  mention  that  in  1538  they  formally  merged  them- 
selves with  the  German  reformers  by  an  agreement  of  which 
the  8th  and  9th  articles  declare  that  marriage  is  permissible, 


1  Bernardi  Fontis  Calidi  Lib.  contra  Waldenses. — Alani  de  Insulis  contra 
Hseret.  Lib.  H. 


ANTISACERDOTALISM THE    FRATICELLI.       377 

without  exception  of  position,  to  all  who  have  not  received 
the  gift  of  continence.1 

The  antisacerdotal  spirit,  however,  did  not  develop  itself 
altogether  in  opposition  to  the  church.  Devout  and  earnest 
men  there  were,  who  recognized  the  evil  resulting  from  the 
overgrown  power  and  wealth  of  the  ecclesiastical  establish- 
ment, without  shaking  off  their  reverence  for  its  doctrine 
and  its  visible  head,  and  the  authorities  saw  in  these  men  the 
effective  means  of  combating  the  enemy.  In  thus  availing 
themselves  of  one  branch  of  the  reformers  to  destroy  the 
other  and  more  radical  portion,  the  chiefs  of  the  hierarchy 
were  adopting  an  expedient  effective  for  the  present,  yet 
fraught  with  danger  for  the  future.  The  Franciscans  and 
Dominicans  were  useful  beyond  expectation.  They  restored 
to  the  church  much  of  the  popular  veneration  which  had 
become  almost  hopelessly  alienated  from  it,  and  their  wonder- 
fully rapid  extension  throughout  Europe  shows  how  univer- 
sally the  people  had  felt  the  want  of  a  religion  which  should 
fitly  represent  the  humility,  the  poverty,  the  charity  of 
Christ.  Yet  when  Innocent  III.  hesitated  long  to  sanction 
the  mendicant  orders,  he  by  no  means  showed  the  want  of 
sagacity  which  has  been  so  generally  asserted  by  superficial 
historians;  rather,  like  Lucius  III.  with  the  Waldenses,  his 
far-seeing  eye  took  in  the  possible  dangers  of  that  fierce 
ascetic  enthusiasm  which  might  at  any  moment  break  the 
bonds  of  earthly  obedience,  when  its  exalted  convictions 
should  declare  that  obedience  to  man  was  revolt  against  God. 

Before  the  century  was  out,  the  result'  was  apparent. 
When  St.  Francis  erected  poverty  into  an  object  of  adora- 
tion, attaching  to  it  an  importance  as  insane  as  that  attributed 
to  virginity  by  the  early  ascetics,  he  at  once  placed  himself 
in  opposition  to  the  whole  system  of  the  church  establish- 
ment, though  his  exquisite  humility  and  exhaustless  charity 
might   disguise   the   dangerous  tendency  ©f  his  doctrines.2 


1  Pluquet,  Dictionnaire   des    Here 
sies,  art.  Vaudois. 


of  St.  Francis,  when  promulgated  in 

the  fifth  century  by  the  Timotheists, 

were    stigmatized    as     heretical. — v. 
The  heresy  of  one  age   becomes    TT     ,    .    °r,       ,,    T    tn, 
~  *i  „.j„    .„e  „ *i  rvu      •  Harduin.  Concil.  I.  525. 


the  orthodoxy  of  another.     The  views 


378  THE    HERESIES. 

As  his  order  grew  in  numbers  and  wealth  with  unexampled 
rapidity,  it  necessarily  declined  from  the  superhuman  height 
of  self-abnegation  of  which  its  founder  was  the  model  ;x  and 
this  falling  off  naturally  produced  dissatisfaction  among 
those  impracticable  spirits  who  still  regarded  St.  Francis  as 
their  exemplar  as  well  as  their  patron.  The  breach  gradually 
widened,  until  at  length  two  parties  were  formed  in  the 
order.  The  ascetics  finally  separated  themselves  from  their 
corrupted  brethren,  and  under  the  name  of  Begghards  in 
Germany,  Frerots  in  France,  and  Fraticelli  in  Southern 
Europe,  assumed  the  position  of  being  the  only  true  church. 
Their  excommunication  at  the  council  of  Yienne,  in  1311,  in 
no  wise  disconcerted  them.  The  long-forgoften  doctrines  of 
Arnold  of  Brescia  were  revived  and  intensified.  Poverty 
was  an  absolute  necessity  to  true  Christianity ;  the  holding 
of  property  was  a  heresy,  and  the  Eoman  church  was  conse- 
quently heretic.  Kome,  indeed,  was  openly  denounced  as 
the  modern  Babylon. 

While  thus  carrying  out  to  its  necessary  consequences  the 
sanctification  of  poverty,  which  was  the  essence  of  Francis- 
canism,  they  were  equally  logical  with  regard  to  the  doctrines 
of  ascetic  purity  which  had  been  so  earnestly  enforced  by  the 
church.  Their  admiration  of  virginity  thus  trenched  closely 
on  Manicheism,  and  in  combating  their  errors  the  church 
was  scarcely  able  to  avoid  condemning  both  the  vow  of 
poverty  and  that  of  celibacy,  which  were  the  corner-stones 
of  the   monastic   theory.2      Active   persecution,    of  course, 


1  Already,  in  1261,  the  council  of  1306,  in  denouncing  the  mendicancy 
Mainz  can  hardly  find  words  severe  of  the  Begghards,  quotes  Gen.  III.  18  : 
enough  to  express  its  condemnation  "  In  sudore  vultus  tui  vesceris  pane 
of  the  mendicant  friars  who  wandered  tuo,"  and  proceeds  :  "  Quod  ad  fortes 
around,  selling  indulgences  and  squan-  j  et  sui  compotes  moraliter  intelligitur 
dering  their  unhallowed  gains  in  the  esse  dictum  :  et  tales  in  ocio  victum 
vilest  excesses.  —  Concil.  Mogunt.  vendicantes,  eleemosynas  rapiunt, 
ann.  1261,  can.  xlviii.  (Hartzheim,  quae  infirmis  et  debilibus  fuerant  pau- 
III.  612.) — One  of  these  lights  of  the  peribus  ministrandae."  And  in  ob- 
order  publicly  preachad,  iu  the  horse-  jecting  to  their  views  of  celibacy, 
market  of  Strasburg.  the  doctrine  that  "Ajunt  etiam  :  Nisi  mulier  virgini- 
a  nun  who  surrendered  her  virtue  to  tatem  in  matrimonio  deperditam  do- 
a  monk  was  less  guilty  than  if  she  leat  et  dolendo  deploret,  salvari  non 
had  an  amour  with  a  layman.  (Ibid,  potest :  quasi  matrimonium  sit  pecca- 
615.)                                                             j  turn,  cum  tamen  ipsum  ante  pecca- 

„  n,,  ,.  .    , ,    .  ~  .  .      turn  in  loco  sancto  a  sanctorum  sane- 

2  1  hus,  a  council  held  at  Cologne  mUssimo   ^^  in8titutum.  qme  vir. 


WICKLIFFE 


379 


aroused  equally  active  resistance.  The  Fraticelli  espoused 
the  cause  of  the  Emperor  Louis  of  Bavaria,  in  his  long  and 
disastrous  quarrel  with  John  XXII.,  whom  they  did  not 
hesitate  to  excommunicate.  Exterminated  after  a  prolonged 
and  desperate  struggle,  their  memory  was  blackened  with 
the  slanders  disseminated  by  a^  priesthood  incapable  of  emu- 
lating their  ascetic  virtues;  and  principal  among  these  slan- 
ders was  the  accusation  which  we  find  repeated  on  all 
occasions  when  an  adversary  is  to  be  rendered  odious — that 
of  promiscuous  and  brutal  licentiousness.  No  authentic 
facts,  however,  can  be  found  to  substantiate  it.1 

The  Fraticelli  form  a  connecting  link  in  the  generations 
of  heresy.  Their  errors,  as  taught  by  one  of  their  most  noted 
leaders,  Walter  Lolhard,  who  was  burned  at  Cologne  in  1322, 
had  a  tinge  of  the  Manicheism  of  the  Albigenses,  for  Satan 
was  to  them  an  object  of  compassion  and  veneration.2  Their 
prevalence  in  Bohemia  prepared  the  ground  for  Huss,  and  left 
deep  traces  in  the  popular  mind  which  were  not  eradicated  in 
the  eighteenth  century ;  while  their  proselytes  in  England 
served  to  swell  the  party  of  Wickliffe,  and  eventually  gave  to 
it  their  name,  though  their  peculiar  doctrines  bore  little  re- 
semblance to  his.3  Antisacerdotalism,  however,  was  the  com- 
mon tie,  and  in  this  Luther,  Zwingli,  and 'Knox  were  the 
legitimate  successors  of  Dolcino  'and  Michael  di  Cesena. 


ginitas  in  foetum  sobolis  compensatur, 
per  quam  humana  natura  stabilitate 
perdurat,"  which  contrasts  strangely 
with  the  teachings  quoted  above  from 
"  Hali  Meidenhad."  Great  stress, 
moreover,  is  laid  upon  the  indissolu- 
bility of  the  marriage  vow,  and  the 
wickedness  of  separating  husband 
and  wife.  "  Quomodo  spiritu  Dei 
agantur  qui  contra  spiritual  Dei 
agunt,  prohibentis  virum  ab  uxore, 
et  e  converso  sine  causa  dimitti?" 
— Concil.  Coloniens.  ann.  1306,  cap.  i. 
ii.  (Hartzheim,  IV.  100-101).  The 
good  fathers  of  the  council  were  dis- 
creetly blind  to  the  antagonism  of 
their  teachings  to  the  received  doc- 
trines and  practices  of  the  church. 

1  A  collection  of  documents  illus- 
trating the  history  of  this  singular 
and  powerful  sect  will  be  found  in 
Baluze  and  Mansi,  III.  206  et  seq. 


How  persistent  and  profound  was 
the  conviction  which  created  the 
heresy  is  shown  by  its  prolonged 
existence.  Even  as  late  as  1421 
Martin  V.  found  it  necessary  to 
issue  a  Bull  denouncing  it  (Raynaldi 
Annal.  ann.  1421,  No.  4)  ;  and  ill 
Germany  the  council  of  Wurzburg 
in  1446  revived  the  old  denunciations 
against  the  Begghards  and  Beguines 
(Hartzheim,  V.  536). 

2  Their  customary  salutation  and 
password  was  an  invocation  of  the 
fallen  angel — "Salutet  te  injuriam 
passus." — "May  the  wronged  one 
preserve  thee!"  —  Tiithem.  Chron. 
Hirsaug.  ann.  1315. 

3  Trithem.  loc.  cit. — Raynaldi  An- 
nal. ann.  1318,  No.  44. — Hartzheim, 
Concil.  German.  IV.  630. 


380  THE   HERESIES. 

In  the  ineradicable  corruption  of  the  church,  every  effort 
to  purify  it  could  only  lead  to  a  heresy.  Except  on  the  deli- 
cate point  of  Transubstantiation,  Wickliffe  proposed  no  doc- 
trinal innovation,  but  he  keenly  felt  and  energetically  sought 
to  repress  the  disorders  which  had  brought  the  church  into 
disrepute.  His  scheme  swept  away  bishop,  cardinal,  and  pope, 
the  priesthood  being  the  culminating  point  in  his  system  of 
ecclesiastical  polity.  The  temporalities  which  weighed  down 
the  spiritual  aspirations  of  the  church  were  to  be  abandoned, 
and  with  them  the  train  of  abuses  by  which  the  worldly 
ambition  of  churchmen  was  sustained — indulgences,  simony, 
image-worship,  the  power  of  excommunication,  and  the  thou- 
sand other  arts  by  which  the  authority  to  bind  and  to  loose 
had  been  converted  into  broad  acres  or  current  coin  of  the 
realm.  In  all  this  he  was  to  a  great  extent  a  disciple  of  the 
Fraticelli,  but  his  more  practical  mind  escaped  their  leading 
error,  and  he  denounced  as  an  intolerable  abuse  the  beggary 
of  the  mendicant  friars.  Indeed,  the  monastic  orders  in  gene- 
ral were  the  objects  of  his  special  aversion,  as  having  no 
justification  in  the  precepts  of  Christ.1  It  is  remarkable, 
however,  that  with  all  his  tendency  to  regard  the  Scriptures 
as  his  sole  authority,  and  notwithstanding  the  boldness  with 
which  he  disregarded  tradition,  he  adhered  to  celibacy  with 
the  fervor  of  a  Jerome  or  a  Hildebrand.  The  sternness 
of  his  mind  made  little  allowance  for  human  weakness,  and, 
in  his  zeal  for  a  purified  church,  he  urged  the  necessity  of 
chastity  with  a  simple  earnestness  that  had  long  become  obso- 
lete.2    All  this  was  unreasonable  enough  in  a  perverse  and 


1  Inter  omnia  monstra  quae  unquam 
intraverunt  ecclesiam,  monstrum  ho- 
rum  fratrum  est  seductivius,  infunda- 
bilius,  et  a  veritate  ac  a  charitate 
distantius.  —  Univ.  Oxon.  Litt.  de 
Error.  Wicklif.  Art.  103.  (Wilkins, 
III.  344.) 

2  For  the  gretnes  of  the  synne  in 
prestis,  ouer  the  synne  in  other  men 
is  schewid  be  many  resouns  ;  and  for 
it  is  mikil  greuowsare  than  simple 
fornicacoun  bi  thwex  an  onlepy  man 
and  an  onlepi  womman,  and  it  is  gret- 
tar  than  spouse  brokun  of  seculer  men 


are  dedly  synne.  And  that  it  be  more 
semith  bi  this  ;  for  ai  the  heiar  degre, 
the  sarrar  is  the  falle,  but  presthed  is 
heiar  degre  than  bodili  matrimoyn, 
and  thus  the  prest  in  doing  fornica- 
coun doth  sacrile  and  breakith  his 
wow  ;  for  bi  the  vertu  of  his  degre  he 
made  the  vow  of  chastite. — Apology 
for  Lollard  Doctrines,  p.  38  (Camden 
Soc.  Ed.). 

The  strictness  of  the  asceticism  at- 
tributed to  him  is  even  more  strik- 
ingly manifested  in  one  of  the  heresies 
condemned    by   the    Convocation    of 


bodily,  and  neuer  the  lese  both  thwo    1396'   Art'    7'   viz''   that   those   who 


THE    LOLLARDS.  381 

stiff-necked  generation,  but  his  unpardonable  error  was  bis 
revival  of  tbe  doctrine  of  Gregory  VII.  regarding  tbe  minis- 
trations of  unfaithful  priests,  which  he  carried  out  resolutely 
to  its  logical  consequences.  According  to  him,  a  wicked 
priest  could  not  perform  his  sacred  functions,  and  forfeited 
both  his  spiritualities  and  temporalities,  of  which  laymen 
were  justified  in  depriving  him.  Nay  more,  priest  and  bishop 
were  no  longer  priest  or  bishop  if  they  lived  in  mortal  sin, 
and  his  definition  of  mortal  sin  was  such  as  to  render  it  scarce 
possible  for  any  one  to  escape.1 

It  is  easier  to  start  a  movement  than  to  restrain  it.  Wickliffe 
might  deny  the  authority  of  tradition,  and  yet  preserve  his  re- 
spect for  the  tradition  of  celibacy,  but  his  followers  could  not 
observe  the  distinction.  They  could  see,  if  he  could  not,  that 
the  structure  of  sacerdotalism,  to  the  overthrow  of  which  he 
devoted  himself,  could  not  be  destroyed  without  abrogating 
the  rule  which  separated  the  priest  from  his  fellow-men,  and 
which  severed  all  other  ties  in  binding  him  to  the  church.  In 
1394,  only  ten  years  after  Wickliffe's  death,  the  Lollards,  by 
that  time  a  powerful  party,  with  strong  revolutionary  tend- 
encies, presented  to  Parliament  a  petition  for  the  thorough 
reformation  of  the  church,  containing  twelve  conclusions  indi- 
cating the  points  on  which  they  desired  change.  Of  these, 
the  third  denounced  the  rule  of  celibacy  as  the  cause  of  the 
worst  disorders,  and  argued  the  necessity  of  its  abrogation ; 
while  the  eleventh  attacked  the  vows  of  nuns  as  even  more 
injurious,  and  demanded  permission  for  their  marriage  with 


marry  from   any  other   motive  than  against  Wickliffe  in  1382,  among  the 

that  of  having  offspring  are  not  truly  articles   presented  as  extracted  from 

married — non    vere    matrimonialiter  his  writings  were — 

copulantur. — (Wilkins,  III.  229.)  Art.  4.   Quod  si   episcopus  vel  sa- 

i  c-    ™     -       4.    a       •    •    *  i        cerdos  existat  in  peccato  mortali,  non 

1  Si    Deus    est,  domini    temporales        ,.      .  .F        ,       ..     .      ' 

nossunt  legitime  ac  m«ritnri«  ufem    °rdinat,  consecrat  nee  baptizat. 
possum  legitime  ac  mentorie  autene        A       ^    Q     d        u  t  dominus 

bona  fortuna?  ab  ecclesia  delinquente.      .    .,.  ,,  4        .  n 
q011ci  lg     Mae'-t     Tol           W     lift     clvllls7  nullus    est    episcopus,  nullus 

Art.  vi.  l  (WilkL,  III.  123.)     JC  '  "  !  rf-^WulfnTinVsTr0^0  ^ 

Licet  regions  auferre  temporalis  a  j    &  ^  u  verbum  otiosum"  and  « ira 

viris   ecc  esiasticis   ip.sis  abutentibus  ,  tumlibet  levis,>  were  denounced 

habitualiter.     Ibid.  Art.  xvn.  ?    ,  .  .   ,    .  ,.       ,     .., 

0    .     ,.  ,.  ,      .    ,,     i  by  him  as  mortal  sms  according  to  the 

So  in  the  proceedings  conducted  by    ^uiversit    of  0xford.-Litt.  de  Error. 

Courtenay,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,    ^  21Q>  ^     ( Wilkins>  UL  3470 


382 


THE    HERESIES 


but  scanty  show  of  respect.1  This  became  the  received  doc- 
trine of  the  sect,  for  in  a  declaration  made  in  1400  by  Arun- 
del, Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  concerning  the  Lollard  here- 
sies, we  find  enumerated  the  belief  that  those  in  holy  orders 
could  take  to  themselves  wives  without  sin,  and  that  monks 
and  nuns  were  at  liberty  to  abandon  their  profession,  and 
marry  at  pleasure.2 

The  fierce  persecutions  of  Henry  Y.,  to  repress  what  he 
rightly  considered  as  a  formidable  source  of  civil  rebellion  as 
well  as  heresy,  succeeded  in  depriving  the  sect  of  political 
power ;  yet  its  religious  doctrines  still  continued  to  exist 
among  the  people,  and  even  sometimes  obtained  public  ex- 
pression.3 They  unquestionably  tended  strongly  to  shake 
the  popular  reverence  for  Eome,  and  had  no  little  influence 
in  eventually  paving  the  way  for  the  revolt  of  the  sixteenth 
century. 


'  Tertia  conclnsio  est  quod  lex  con- 
tinentia?  injuncta  sacerdotio,  quse  in 
prsejudicium  mulierum  prius  fuit  or- 
dinata,  inducit  sodomiam  in  totam 
sanctam  ecclesiam.  .  .  .  Corollarium 
istius  est,  privatse  religiones  et  incep- 
tores  sive  origo  istius  peccati  essent 
maxime  digna?  adnullari.  .  .  .  Unde- 
cima  conclusio,  quod  votum  conti- 
nentia?  factum  in  nostra  ecclesia  per 
mulieres,  quia  sunt  fragiles  et  imper- 
fecta? in  natura,  est  causa  inductionis 
maxiraorum  horribilium  peccatorum 
possibilium  humanae  naturae,  &c.  .  .  . 
Corollarium  est  quod  vidua?  et  tales 
quse  accipiunt  mantellum  et  annulum 
delicata?  pasta?  vellemus  quod  essent 
desponsatae,  quia  nescimus  eas  excu- 
sare  a  privatis  peccatis. — Conclusi- 
ones  Lollardorum.  (Wilkins,  III. 
221-3.) 

2  Item,  asserere  quod  presbyteri  et 
constituti  in  sacris  jure  divino  nubere 
possunt  sine  periculo  et  peccato.  .  .  . 
Item,  asserere  quod  licitum  est  et 
etiam  meritorium  religiosis  personis 
utriusque  sexus,  et  in  quacumque 
religione  approbata  eorum  libero 
arbitrio  egredi  religionem,  et  redire  ad 
sa?culum,  et  ducere  uxores,  et  e  con- 
verso.     (Wilkins,  III.  248.) 


3  In  1426,  ten  years  after  the  execu- 
tion of  Lord  Cobbam,  a  Franciscan 
named  Thomas  Richmond  was 
brought  before  the  council  of  York  for 
publicly  preaching  the  high  Wickliff- 
ite  doctrine  "  Sacerdos  in  peccato  mor- 
tali  lapsus,  non  est  sacerdos.  Item 
quod  ecclesia  nolente  velnon  puniente 
fornicarios,  licitum  est  ssecularibus 
eosdem  poena  carceris  castigare,  et  ad 
hoc  astrinajuntur  vinculo  charitatis." 
(Wilkins,  III.  488.)  This  practical 
application  of  the  Hildebrandine 
principle  did  not  suit  the  church  of 
the  fifteenth  century.  It  was  pro- 
nounced heretical,  and  Friar  Thomas 
I  was  forced  to  recant. 

Equally  offensive  to  the  memoiy  of 
'  Gregory  was  the  decision  of  the  Sor- 
bonne  in  1486,  condemning  as  hereti- 
j  cal  the  propositions  of  the  puritan 
i  Bishop  of  Meaux — "  3.  Un  pretre  for- 
|  nicateur  ne  doit  pas  dire  Dominus  vo- 
l  biscum  ni  reciter  l'office  en  aucun 
lieu  sacre.  Ce  qui  est  faux  et  suspect 
!  d'heresie." — "4.  Les  sacremensadmi- 
'  nistrez  ou  l'office  dit  par  un  tel  pretre 
I  ne  valent  pas  mieux  que  les  cris  des 
:  chiens.  Proposition  fausse  et  erronee 
I  dans  la  premiere  partie,  heretique 
I  scandaleuse  et  ofFensant  les  oreilles 
I  pieuses  dans  la  seconde." — Fleury, 
Hist.  Eccles.  Liv.  cxvi.  No.  39. 


THE    HUSSITES.  383 

John  Huss  was  rather  a  reformer  than  a  heresiarch.  Ad- 
mirer though  he  was  of  Wickliffe,  even  to  the  point  of  wish- 
ing to  risk  damnation  with  him,1  he  avoided  the  doctrinal 
errors  of  the  Englishman  on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist. 
Yet  his  predestinarian  views  were  unorthodox,  and  he  fully 
shared  Wickliffe's  Gregorian  ideas  as  to  the  effect  of  mortal 
sin  in  divesting  the  priesthood  of  all  claim  to  sacredness  or 
respect.  No  one  could  be  the  vicar  of  Christ  or  of  Peter 
unless  he  were  an  humble  imitator  of  the  virtues  of  him 
whom  he  claimed  to  represent ;  and  a  pope  who  was  given  to 
avarice  was  only  the  representative  of  Judas  Iscariot.2  This 
right  of  private  judgment  threatened  results  too  formidable 
to  the  whole  structure  of  sacerdotalism,  and  his  condemna- 
tion was  inevitable.  Still,  like  Wickliffe,  he  was  a  devout 
believer  in  ascetic  purity.  His  denunciations  of  the  wealth 
and  disorders  of  the  clergy  raised  so  great  an  excitement 
throughout  Bohemia,  that  King  Wenceslas  was  forced  to  issue 
a  decree  depriving  immoral  ecclesiastics  of  their  revenues. 
The  partisans  of  Huss  took  a  lively  interest  in  the  enforce- 
ment of  this  law,  and  brought  the  unhappy  ecclesiastics 
before  the  tribunals  with  a  pertinacity  which  amounted  to 
the  persecution  of  an  inquisition.3 

Unlike  the  Lollards,  the  Hussites  maintained  the  strictness 
of  their  founder's  views  on  the  subject  of  celibacy.  If  the 
fiercer  Taborites  cruelly  revenged  their  wrongs  upon  the 
religious  orders,  it  was  to  punish  the  minions  of  Eome,  and 
not  to  manifest  their  contempt  for  asceticism ;  and,  at  the 
same  time,  even  the  milder  Calixtins  treated  all  lapses  from 
clerical  virtue  among  themselves  with  a  severity  which  proved 


1  When,  after  the  fearful  disaster  of       2  Artie.   Damnat.  Joarmis  Husz,  No. 
Taass,  the  Council  of  Bale,  in  1432,    viii.   x.     xi.    xii.     xiii.      xxii.    xxx. 
commenced  the  conferences  which  re-    (Concil.  Constantiens.  Sess.  xv.) 
suited  in   the  nominal  reconciliation  ;      3  p  Heresies   s    v 

of  the    Hussites,  the    fathers   of   the  ,  „     .^^Lwfi"  «^sies   s.  v. 

.,  ,  -,   ,.      -,         '  Huss. — bynod.  Olomuceiis.  aim.  1413, 

council   were    much    scandalized    at  ,     r.  .         ,.  , 

,  ,,      j,  ,        .         -,        ,.  can.    1.  '•  asserentes  etiam  .  .  .  quod 

hearing  the  Bohemian  deputies  reve-.   ,  ,     .  .       .        ..       H 


rently  quote  Wickliffe  as  the  Evange- 
lical Doctor.  In  fact,  Peter  Payne, 
his  disciple,  who  first  carried  his  doc- 
trines into  Bohemia,  was  still  alive, 
and  was  one  of  the  disputants. 
(Hartzheim,  V.  762-4.) 


bona  clericorum  male  viventium  pos- 
sunt  rapere  et  eos  spoliare  sine  poena 
excommunicationis  ...  Ex  eadem 
radice  et  hseretica  pravitate  dicunt 
alii,  quod  sacerdos  in  mortali  existens 
peccato,  non  possit  conficere  corpus 
Christi."  (Hartzheim,  V.  39,40.) 


384  THE    HERESIES. 

their  sincerity  and  earnestness,  and  which  had  long  been  a 
stranger  to  the  administration  of  the  church.1  Traces  of  the 
teachings  of  the  Fraticelli,  moreover,  are  to  be  found  in  the 
doctrines  which  dissevered  temporal  from  spiritual  power, 
and  denied  to  the  clergy  all  ownership  or  dominion  over 
landed  possessions.2 

The  Hussite  movement  thus  was  a  protest  against  some  of 
the  forms  of  sacerdotalism,  but  was  too  limited  in  its  objects 
to  require  more  than  this  passing  allusion  at  our  hands,  even 
had  its  domination  not  been  confined  to  so  narrow  a  territory 
and  so  short  an  epoch  as  to  deprive  it  of  all  lasting  influence 
on  the  purification  of  the  church.  Against  the  wishes  of  the 
papacy,  at  the  council  of  Bale,  the  church  assented  to  a 
reconciliation,  and  attempted  an  internal  reformation,  which 
postponed  for  a  century  the  inevitable  revolution. 

* 

Wickliffe  and  Huss  were  not  the  only  inheritors  of  the  anti- 
sacerdotal  spirit  of  the  Fraticelli.  About  the  close  of  the 
fourteenth  century  there  arose  in  Thuringia  a  heresiarch 
named  Conrad  Schmidt,  whose  teachings  swept  away  the  forms 
and  observances  which  had  so  thickly  incrusted  the  simple 
doctrines  of  Christianity.  The  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  image- 
worship,  fasting,  feasts,  purgatory,  confession,  and  absolution, 
all  fell  before  the  fearless  logic  of  the  reformer,  and  his  dis- 
ciples fondly  treasured  him  in  memory  as  a  second  incarnation 
of  Enoch.  For  forty  years  the  sect  flourished  in  secret,  but  at 
length  it  was  discovered  in  Meissen,  where  its  members  were 
known  as  Brethren  of  the  Cross,  and  where  it  was  extermi- 
nated  in  1414  by  the  fagots  of  Sangerhausen.     The  licen- 


1  Conciliab.    Pragens.    ann.    1420,  I  to   the    subject   of   celibacy.      (Ibid, 
can.  xii.  xiii. — At  this  time  the  Huss-  I  760-73.) 

ites  had  full  sway  in  Bohemia ;  the  This  did  not,  however,  save  them 
council  was  held  by  Conrad,  Arch-  from  the  customary  accusations  of 
bishop  of  Prague,  who  had  adopted  j  immorality.  Thus,  in  1431,  Conrad, 
their  faith,  and  its  canons  were  in-  |  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  in  convoking  a 
tended  for  the  internal  regulation  of !  council  to  take  action  against  them, 
their  own  church.  (Hartzheim,  V.  j  says  of  the  sect  "  exterminavit  clerum 
198.)  In  the  long  conferences,  ex- j  et  omnem  coelibatum  commercio  ne- 
tending  from  1431  to  1438,  which  I  phando  stupravit."— Gudeni  Cod.  Di- 
resulted  in   their   reunion   with   the    plom.  IV.  185. 

Catholic  church,  there  is  no  allusion        i  Conoiliab.    Pragens.    ann.    1420, 

can.  viii. 


WARNINGS.  385 

tious  doctrines  attributed  to  them  by  the  monkish  chronicler 
show  that  sacerdotal  celibacy  was  one  of  the  observances 
which  they  repudiated.1  Similar  in  its  tendency,  and  almost 
identical  in  details,  was  the  heresy  which,  in  1411,  was  con- 
demned in  Flanders  by  Pierre  d' Ailly,  Archbishop  of  Cambrai. 
Giles  Cantor,  a  layman,  and  a  Carmelite  known  as  William 
of  Hilderniss  gathered  around  them  followers  who  assumed 
the  title  of  Men  of  Intelligence.  Like  Conrad  Schmidt,  they 
rejected  the  empty  formalism  which  had  to  so  great  an  extent 
usurped  the  place  of  religion,  but  there  was  little  of  the 
temper  of  martyrs  about  them,  and  a  public  renunciation  of 
their  errors  at  Brussels  speedily  deprived  them  of  all  im- 
portance.2 

While  thus  trampling  out  these  successive  heresies,  the 
church  was  blind  to  the  lesson  taught  by  their  perpetual  re-, 
currence.  The  minds  of  men  were  gradually  learning  to 
estimate  at  its  true  value  the  claim  of  the  hierarchy  to  vene- 
ration, and  at  the  same  time  the  vices  of  the  establishment 
were  yearly  becoming  more  odious,  and  its  oppression  more 
onerous.  The  explosion  might  be  delayed  by  attempts  at 
partial  reformation,  but  it  was  ineyitable. 


'The    spirit    of    the    sectaries    of  i  the  dead  "  nihil  prosint  defunctis,  sed 


Schmidt  is  shown  by  one  of  their  doc 
trines — "Propter  sacerdotum  nequi- 
tiam,  licentiavit  Deus  et  ahjecit  sacer- 
dotium  evangelicum,"  and  by  their 
argument   for   abolishing   masses  for 


sint  solatia  vivorum  et  repleant  mar- 
supia  clericorum." — Gobelin.  Person. 
Cosmodrom.  iEtat.  vi.  cap.  xciii. 

2  Raynaldi  Annal.  anu.  1411,  No. 
11. 


25 


XXIV. 
THE  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY. 


That  the  church  was  sorely  in  want  of  purification  need 
hardly,  I  apprehend,  be  insisted  on.  Yet  the  great  council 
of  Constance,  one  of  whose  leading  objects  was  its  reforma- 
tion, shrank  timidly  from  the  tremendous  task,  though  it  had 
dared  to  depose  a  pope,  and  had  no  scruples  in  immolating 
the  unfortunate  Huss.  Exhausted,  we  may  charitably  be- 
lieve, by  these  efforts,  it  could  not,  in  all  its  three  years  of 
existence,  find  leisure  for  correcting  the  morals  of  its  delin- 
quent constituency,  and  in  its  canon  "  De  Vita  et  Honestate 
Clericorum"  it  could  only  regulate  the  dress  of  ecclesiastics, 
the  unclerical  cut  of  whose  sleeves  was  especially  distasteful 
to  the  reverend  fathers.1 

Perhaps  the  council  recognized  that  reformation  was  be- 
yond its  power,  unless  it  was  prepared  to  remodel  the  entire 
structure  of  the  church.  That  a  reformation  was  required  it 
could  not  but  know.  One  of  its  leading  members,  Nicholas 
de  Clemangis,  had  publicly  declared  in  writing  that  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  clergy  was  so  universal  that  those  who  fulfilled 
their  vows  were  the  object  of  the  most  degrading  and  disgust- 
ing suspicions,  so  little  faith  was  there  in  the  possible  purity 
of  any  ecclesiastic.  He  also  records  the  extension  of  a  custom 
to  which  I  have  already  alluded,  when  he  states  that  in  a  ma- 
jority of  parishes  the  people  insisted  on  their  pastors  keeping 
concubines,  and  that  even  this  was  a  precaution  insufficient 
for  the  peace  and  honor  of  their  families.2 

Perhaps  the  council  flattered  itself  that,  in  providing  for 
the  infamous  John  XXIII.  a  successor  of  unimpeachable 
character  and  high  ability,  the  work  which  it  had  neglected 


1  Concil.  Constant.  Sess.  xliii. 

2  Taceo  de  fornicationibus  et  adulte- 
riis,  a  quibus  qui  alieni  sunt  probro 
caeteris  ac  ludibrio  esse  solent,  spado- 
nesque  aut  sodomitae  appellantur ; 
denique  laici  usque  adeo  persuasum 
habent  nullos  coelibes  esse,  ut  in  pie- 


risque  parocbiis  non  aliter  velint 
presbyterum  tolerarenisi  coneubinam 
habeat,  quo  vel  sic  suis  sit  consultum 
uxoribus,  quae  nee  sic  quidem  usque- 
quaque  sunt  extra  periculum. — Nic. 
de  Clemangis  de  Praesul.  Simoniac. 
(Bayle,  Diet.  Hist.  s.  v.  Hall.) 


CORRUPTION    UNDIMINISHED.  387 

would  be  performed.  Martin  V.,  in  fact,  did  attempt  it.  In 
1422  Cardinal  Branda,  of  Piacenza,  his  legate,  when  sent  to 
Germany  to  preach  a  crusade  against  the  Hussites,  was  honored 
with  the  title  of  Keformer  General,  and  full  powers  were 
given  to  him  to  effect  this  portion  of  his  mission.  The  letters- 
patent  of  the  pope  bear  ample  testimony  to  thfi  fearful  de- 
pravity of  the  Teutonic  church,1  while  the  constitution  which 
Branda  promulgated  declares  that  in  a  portion  of  the  priest- 
hood there  was  scarcely  left  a  trace  of  decency  or  morality.2 
According  to  this  document,  concubinage,  simony,  neglect  of 
sacred  functions,  gambling,  drinking,  fighting,  buffoonery,  and 
kindred  pursuits,  were  the  prevalent  vices  of  the  ministers  of 
Christ ;  but  the  punishments  which  he  enacted  for  their  sup- 
pression— repetitions  of  those  which  we  have  seen  proclaimed 
so  many  times  before — were  powerless  to  overcome  the  evils 
which  had  become  part  and  parcel  of  the  church  itself. 

While  the  Armagnacs  and  Burgundians  were  rivalling  the 
English  in  carrying  desolation  into  every  corner  of  France, 
it  could  not  be  expected  that  the  peaceful  virtues  could 
flourish,  or  sempiternal  corruption  be  reformed.  Accord- 
ingly, it  need  not  surprise  us  to  see  Hardouin,  Bishop  of 
Angers,  despondingly  admit,  in  1428,  that  licentiousness  had 


1  For  instance,  as  regards  the  religi- 1  attention  to  the  subject,  devising  fresh 
ous  houses — "  In  nonnullis  quoque  mo- ;  penalties  to  effect  the  impossible.   The 


uasteriis  .  .  .  norma  discipline  respu- 
itur,  cultus  divinus  negligitur,  per- 
sonam quoque  hujusmodi,  vitse  ac 
morum  honestate  prostrata,  lubrici- 
tati,  incontinentia?,  et  aliis  variis  car- 


result  is  shown  in  the  lament  of  the 
council  of  Cologne  in  1423 — "  Quia 
tamen,  succrescente  malitia  temporis 
moderni,  labes  hujusmodi  criminis  in 
ecclesia  Dei  in  tantum  inolevit,  quod 


nalis  concupiscentiae  voluptatibus  et  scandala  plurima  in  populo  sunt  ex- 
viciis  non  sine  gravi  divinse  majesta-  orta,  el  verisimiliter  exoriri  poterunt 
tis  ofFensa  tabescentes,  vitam  ducunt  j  in  futurum,  et  ex  fide  dignorum  rela- 
dissolutam." — Martin.  V.  ad  Brandam  tione  percepimus  quod  quidam  eccle- 
§    iii.       (Ludewig,    Reliq.    Msctorum  j  siarum  prselati  et  alii,  etiam  capitula 

...  tales  in  suis  iniquitatibus  susti- 
nuerunt  et  sustinent."     So  far,  how- 


XL  409.) 

2  Usque  adeo  nonnullorum  clerico- 
rum    corruptela   excrevit,  ut    morum 


ever,  were  the  decrees  of  the  council 

.  i  a.  a-  .•   •  i  trom   being  effective,  that  the   Arch- 

atque   honestatis    vestigia   apud    eos    ..  ,  5     ,X.      ,  \  ,.,     ', 

1  j       j  5      •  \      ri        '  bishop  was   obliged  to  modifv  them 

pauca  admodum  remanserint, — Con-;       ,  . ^  ,     ,         xlfi  ,   xl          .      *,       , 
stit    Brands  5  1       (On    tit    XI    3fir  ^  '  a  declare  that  they  should  only 


This  condition  of  affairs  was  not  the 
result  of  any  abandonment  of  the 
attempt  to  enforce  the  canons.     Local 


be  enforced  against  those  ecclesiastics 
who  were  notoriously  guilty,  and  who 
kept  their  concubines  publicly. — 
Concil.  Coloniens.  ann.  1423,  can.  i. 


synods  were  meeting  every  year,  and      ...       /Hartzhpim   v    217   220  ^ 
scarcely  one  of  them  failed  to   call  I  V111,     ^artziieim>  v-  ^1,<&~V>) 


388 


THE   FIFTEENTH    CENTURY 


become  so  habitual  among  bis  clergy  that  it  was  no  longer 
reputed  to  be  a  sin;  that  concubinage  was  public  and  undis- 
guised, and  that  the  patrimony  of  Christ  was  wasted  in  sup- 
porting the  guilty  partners  of  the  priesthood.  That  gambling, 
swearing,  drunkenness,  and  all  manner  of  unclerical  conduct 
should  accompany  these  disorders,  is  too  probable  to  require 
the  concurrent  testimony  which  the  worthy  bishop  affords  us.1 

Such  was  the  state  of  sacerdotal  morals  when  the  great 
council  of  Bale  attracted  to  itself  the  hopes  of  Christendom 
as  the  sole  instrument  by  which  the  purification  of  the 
church  could  be  effected — a  purification  which  was  felt  to  be 
the  only  safeguard  against  a  revolutionary  uprising  of  the 
indignant  laity.2     The  good  fathers  evidently  recognized  the 


1  Adeo  carnis  vitium  inolevit,  et 
ideo  factum  est,  quod  peccatum  quasi 
non  reputatur.  .  .  .  et  in  inhonesta- 
rum  liujusmodi  mulierum  sustenta- 
tionein  stipendia  ecclesiastica,  et 
Christi  patrimonium  et  pauperuni 
expendere  non  verentur. — Harduini 
Andegav.  Epist.  Statut.  Prsef.  (Mar- 
ten e  et  Durand.  IV.  523-4). 

2  See  the  curious  letter  addressed 
to  Pope  En  genius  in  Dec.  1431  by  his 
legate,  Cardinal  Csesarini,  refusing  to 
obey  the  Bull  dissolving  the  council: 
"  Incitavit  me  hue  venire  deformitas 
et  dissolutio  cleri  Alemanise,  ex  qua 
laici  supra  modum  irritantur  ad  versus 
statum  ecclesiasticum.  Propter  quod 
valde  timendum  est,  nisi  se  emendent, 
ne  laici,  more  Hussitarum,  in  totum 
clerum  irruant,  ut  publice  dicunt. 
Et  quidem  hujusmodi  deformatio 
magnam  audaciam  prsebet  Bohemis, 
multumque  colorat  errores  eorum 
qui  prsecipue  invehunt  contra  turpi- 
tudinem  eleri.  '  Qua  de  re,  etiam  si 
hie  non  fuisset  generale  concilium 
institutum,  necessarium  fuisset  facere 
unum  provinciale,  ratione  legationis 
per  Germaniam  proclero  reformando; 
quia  revera  timendum  est,  nisi  iste 
clerus  se  corrigat,  quod  etiam,  extincta 
hseresi  Bohemia?,  susciterentur  alia 
.  .  .  Celebrata  tot  sunt  diebus  nos- 
tris  concilia,  ex  quibus  nulla  sequuta 
est  reformatio.  Expectabant  gentes 
ut  ex  hoc  sequeretur  aliquis  fructus. 
Sed   si  hoc  dissolvatur,  dicetur  quod 


nos  irridemus  Deum  et  homines.     Et 
cum  jam  nulla  spes  supererit  de  nos- 
tra correctione,  irruent  merito  laici  in 
nos  more  Hussitarum  :  et  certa  fama 
publica  de  hoc  est.    Animi  hominum 
prsegnantes  sunt:  jam  incipiunt  evo- 
mere    venenum,  quo   nos    perimant  : 
putabunt  se  sacriticium  prsestare  Deo, 
qui  clericos  aut  trucidabunt  aut  spo- 
liabunt,  quoniam   reputabuntur  jam 
j  in  profundum  malorum  venisse,fiunt 
;  odiosi  Deo  et  mundo,  et  cum  modica 
nunc  ad  eos  sit  devotio,  tunc  omnis 
peribit.     Erat  istud  concilium  quod- 
dam    retinaculum    ssecularium;    sed 
cum  viderint  spem   omnem  deficere, 
i  laxabunt  habenas  publice  persequen- 
I  do  nos."     As  a  proof  of  his  assertions, 
|  the  legate  refers  to  various  local  trou- 
bles, which  he  regards  as  symptoms 
!  of  a  wide-spread  revolt  on  the  point 
|  of  breaking  out.    Magdeburg  had  ex- 
|  pelled    her    archbishop   and    clergy ; 
i  was  preparing  wagons  with  which  to 
|  fight  after  the  Bohemian  fashion,  and' 
was    even    said   to    have  sent    for   a 
Hussite    to    command     her     forces. 
Passau    had    revolted     against    her 
bishop,   and   was    even   then  laying 
close  siege  to  his  citadel.     Bamberg 
was  engaged  in  a  violent  quarrel  with 
her  bishop  and  chapter.    These  cities 
I  were  regarded  as  the  centres  of  for- 
f  midable    secret     confederacies,    and 
i  were  even  said  to  be  negotiating  with 
the   Hussites. — JEnese    Sylvii    Com- 
ment, de  Gest.  Cone.   Basil,  ad   cal- 
cem  (Opp.  Basil.  1551,  pp.  66-68). 


THE    COUNCIL   OF    BALE.  389 

full  magnitude  of  the  danger,  and  addressed  themselves  reso- 
lutely to  the  removal  of  its  cause.  All  who  were  guilty  of 
public  concubinage  were  ordered  to  dismiss  their  consorts 
within  sixty  days  after  the  promulgation  of  the  canon,  under 
pain  of  deprivation  of  revenue  for  three  months.  Persistent 
contumacy  or  repetition  of  the  offence  was  visited  with  suspen- 
sion from  functions  and  stipend  until  satisfactory  evidence 
should  be  afforded  of  repentance  and  amendment.  Bishops 
who  neglected  to  enforce  the  law  were  to  be  held  as  sharing 
the  guilt  which  they  allowed  to  pass  unpunished ;  and  those 
prelates  who  were  above  the  jurisdiction  of  local  tribunals 
or  synods  were  to  be  remanded  to  Eome  for  trial.  The  coun- 
cil deplored  the  extensive  prevalence  of  the  "cullagium,"  by 
which  those  to  whom  was  intrusted  the  administration  of  the 
church  did  not  hesitate  to  enjoy  a  filthy  gain  by  selling 
licenses  to  sin.  A  curse  was  pronounced  on  all  involved  in 
such  transactions;  they  were  to  share  the  penalties  of  the 
guilt  which  they  encouraged,  and  were,  in  addition,  to  pay  a 
fine  of  double  the  amount  of  their  iniquitous  receipts.1 

Honest,  well-meant  legislation  this;  yet  the  fathers  of  the 
council  could  hardly  deceive  themselves  with  the  expecta- 
tion that  it  would  prove  effectual.  If  legislation  could  ac- 
complish the  desired  result,  there  had  already  been  enough 
of  it  since  the  days  of  Siricius.  The  compilations  of  canon- 
law  were  full  of  admirable  regulations,  by  which  generation 
after  generation  had  endeavored  to  attain  the  same  object  by 
every  imaginable  modification  of  inquisition  and  penalty. 
Ingenuity  had  been  exhausted  in  devising  laws  which  were 
only  promulgated  to  be  despised  and  forgotten.  Something 
more  was  wanting,  and  that  something  could  not  be  had 
without  overturning  the  elaborate  structure  so  skilfully  and 
laboriously  built  up  by  the  craft,  the  enthusiasm,  and  the  reli- 
gion of  ten  centuries. 

How  utterly  impotent,  in  fact,  were  the  efforts  of  the  coun- 
cil, is  evident  when,  within  five  years  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Basilian  canons,  Doctor  Kokkius,  in  a  sermon  preached 
before  the  council  of  Freysingen,  could  scarcly  find  words 


Concil.  Basiliens.  Sess.  xx.  (Jan.  22,  1435). 


390  THE    FIFTEENTH    CENTURY. 

strong  enough  to  denounce  the  evil  courses  of  the  clergy  as 
a  class  ;!  and  when,  within  fifteen  years,  we  find  Nicholas  V. 
declaring  that  the  clergy  enjoyed  such  immunity  that  they 
scarcely  regarded  incontinence  as  a  sin — a  declaration  sus- 
tained by  the  regulations  promulgated  for  the  restraint  of  the 
officials  of  his  own  court,  which  imply  the  previous  open  and 
undisguised  defiance  of  the  canons.2 

Even  in  this  attempt  of  Nicholas,  however,  is  to  be  seen 
one  of  the  causes  which  perpetuated  the  corruption  of  the 
church.  He  orders  that  all  who  thereafter  persist  in  keeping 
concubines  in  defiance  of  the  regulations  shall  be  incapable 
of  receiving  benefices  without  special  letters  of  indulgence 
from  the  Holy  See.3  Shrouded  under  a  thin  veil  of  for- 
mality, this  in  substance  indicates  the  degrading  source  of 
revenue  which  was  so  energetically  condemned  in  inferior 
officials.  The  pressing  and  insatiable  pecuniary  needs  of  the 
papal  court,  indeed,  rendered  it  impotent  as  a  reformer,  how- 
ever honest  the  wearer  of  the  tiara  might  himself  be  in 
desiring  to  rescue  the  church  from  its  infamy.  Eeckless 
expenditure  and  universal  venality  were  insuperable  obsta- 
cles to  any  comprehensive  and  effective  measures  of  reforma- 
tion. Every  one  was  preoccupied  either  in  devising  or 
in  resisting  extortion.  The  local  synods  were  engaged  in 
quarrelling  over  the  subsidies  demanded  by  Rome,  while  the 
chronicles  of  the  period  are  filled  with  complaints  of  the 
indulgences  sold  year  after  year  to  raise  money  for  various 
purposes.  Sometimes  the  objects  alleged  are  indignantly 
declared  to  be  purely  supposititious;  at  other  times  intima- 
tions are  thrown  out  that  the  collections  were  diverted  to  the 


Quoniam   nostri  temporis   clerici  I  turn. — Lib.  in.  Tit.  i.  c.    3,  in  Sep- 


sunt,  heu,  affectu  crudeles,  affatu 
mendaces,  gestu  incompositi,  victu 
luxuriosi,  actu  impii,  et  sub  vacuo 
sanctitatis  nomine  sancti  nominis 
derogant  discipline  (Hartzlieim,  V. 
266).  The  council  contented  itself 
with,  repeating  the  canons  of  Bale. 

2  Quod  plerique,  propter  illius  im- 
punitatem,  sibi    blandiuntur  minime 


timo. 

3  Quicunque  alii  concubinas  et  mu- 
lieres  hujusmodi,  contra  prsesentem 
prohibitionem  tenere  prsesumentes, 
inhabiles  censeantur  ad  beneficia  ob- 
tinenda,  et  in  dicta  curia  offiGia  hu- 
jusmodi exercenda,  nee  illorum  ca- 
paces  efficiantur,  nisi  inhabilitatem 
suam   antea  per   dictae   sedis   literas 


verendum,  imo  quasi  non  fore  pecca-  I  obtinuerint  aboleri. — Ubi  sup. 


ITALY  —  FRANCE.  391 

private  gain  of  the  popes  and  of  their  creatures.1  The 
opinion  which  the  church  in  general  entertained  of  the  papal 
court  is  manifested  with  sufficient  distinctness  in  a  letter 
from  Ernest,  Archbishop  of  Magdeburg,  to  his  ambassador  at 
Eome.  The  prelate  states  that  he  has  deposited  five  hun- 
dred florins  in  Fugger's  bank  at  Augsburg,  for  which  he 
desires  to  procure  certain  bulls,  one  to  enable  him  to  sell 
indulgences,  the  other  to  compel  the  chapter  of  Magdeburg 
to  allow  him  to  dispose  of  the  salt-works  of  Halle,  in  defiance 
of  the  vested  rights  of  his  church — thus  taking  for  granted  a 
cynicism  of  venality  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  parallel  in 
the  secular  affairs  of  the  most  corrupt  of  courts.2 

The  aspirations  of  Christendom  had  culminated  in  the 
council  of  Bale  in  the  most  potential  form  known  to  the 
church  universal,  and  such  were  the  results  while  the  influ- 
ences of  the  council  were  yet  recent,  and  while  the  antago- 
nistic papacy  was  under  the  control  of  men  sincerely  desirous 
to  promote  the  best  interests  of  the  church,  such  as  Nicholas 
Y.  and  Pius  II.  "We  can  feel  no  wonder,  therefore,  if  the 
darkness  continued  to  grow  thicker  and  deeper  under  the  rule 
of  such  pontiffs  as  Innocent  VIII.  and  Alexander  VI.  Savo- 
narola found  an  inexhaustible  subject  of  declamation  in  the 
fearful  vices  of  the  ecclesiastics  of  his  times,  whom  he  de- 
scribes as  ruffiani  e  mezzani.3  In  the  assembly  of  the  Trois 
Etata  of  France,  held  at  Tours  in  1484,  the  orator  of  the 
Estates,  Jean  de  Rely,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Angers,  in  his 
official  address  to  Charles  VIII.,  declared  it  to  be  notorious 
that  the  religious  orders  had  lost  all  devotion,  discipline,  and 
obedience  to  their  rule,  while  the  canons  (and  he  was  himself 


1  Comp.  Doeringii  Chron.  passim.    Quand  je  pense  a  tout  cela,  a  la  vie 


Doringk  was  minister,  or  head  of  the 
powerful  Franciscan  order  in  Saxony, 
and  therefore  may  be  considered  an 


que  menent  les  pretres,  je  ne  puis 
retenir  mes  larmes."  And  again,  "  Ma 
peggio  ancora.    Quello  die  sta  la  notte 


unexceptionable  witness.  con  la  coucubina,  quell'  altro  con  il 


2  Ludewig    Reliq.    Msctorum.    XL 
415. 

3  "Si  vous  saviez  tout  ce  que  je 


garzone,  e  poi  la  mattina  va  a  dire 
messa,  pensa  tu  come  la  va.  Che 
vuoi  tu  fare  di  qUella  messa  ?" — Je- 
rome  Savonarole    d'apres    les    Docu- 


sais !    des    choses    degoutantes  I     des  j  ments  Originaux,  par  F.  T.  Perrons, 
choses  horribles!  vous  en  fremiriez !  j  pp.  71-72.     Paris,  1856. 


392  THE    FIFTEENTH    CENTURY. 

a  canon  of  Paris)  had  sunk  far  below  the  laity  in  their  morals, 
to  the  great  scandal  of  the  church.1 

In  England,  the  facts  developed  by  the  examination  which 
Innocent  YIII.  in  1489  authorized  Morton,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  to  make  into  the  condition  of  the  religious 
houses,  present  a  state  of  affairs  quite  as  bad.  Innocent 
describes  them,  in  his  bull  to  the  archbishop,  as  wholly  fallen 
from  their  original  discipline,  and  this  is  fully  confirmed  by 
the  results  of  the  visitation.  The  old  and  wealthy  abbey 
of  St.  Albans,  for  instance,  was  little  more  than  a  den  of  pros- 
titutes, with  whom  the  monks  lived  openly  and  avowedly.  In 
two  priories  under  its  jurisdiction,  the  nuns  had  been  turned 
out,  and  their  places  filled  with  courtezans,  to  whom  the 
monks  of  St.  Albans  publicly  resorted,  indulging  in  all  man- 
ner of  shameless  and  riotous  living,  the  details  of  which  can 
well  be  spared.2  These  irregularities  were  emulated  by  the 
secular  ecclesiastics.  Among  the  records  of  the  reign  of 
Henry  VII.  is  a  memorial  from  the  gentlemen  and  farmers 
of  Carnarvonshire,  complaining  that  the  seduction  of  their 
wives  and  daughters  was  pursued  systematically  by  the  clergy.3 

Spain  was  equally  infected.  When  Cardinal  Ximenes,  in 
1496,  was  elevated  to  the  primatial  see  of  Toledo,  he  under- 
took to  reform  the  clergy  of  his  diocese.  A  Franciscan  him- 
self, the  members  of  his  own  order  gave  him  especial  trouble. 
After  exhausting  every  expedient  of  opposition,  rather  than 
submit  to  the  rule  of  their  institution,  more  than  one  thou- 
sand monks  left  the  country,  and,  according  to  some  authori- 


1  Chascun   scet   qu'il   n'y    a    plus  ;  lard,  a  celebrated  Franciscan  preacher 
reigle,  devocion  ne  discipline   religi- !  of  the  period.     "Sunt  ne  ibi  mulieres 


euse,  qui  est  chose  fort  prejudiciable 
au  bien  du  roy  et  du  royaume  .  .  . 
quant  on  voit  les  lais  meilleurs  que 
les  gens  d'eglise,  qui  doivent  estre  la 
forme,  l'exemple  et  le  mirouer  des  au 


et  sacerdotes  qui  dicunt  quod  mulieres 
comedentes  venenum  ad  expellen- 
dum  materiam  de  matrice  sua,  ne 
foetus  veniat  ad  partum,  antequam 
anima    rationalis    introducatur,    non 


tres,  et  quant  on  ne  trouve  point  au    peccant mortaliter?" — Ap.  H.  Estienne, 

chief  le  sens,  le  regime  et  la  conduite  !  Apol.  pour  Herodote  Liv.  i.  chap.  vi. 

qui  se  trouvent  en  la  plante  du  pie,  I      „  m,„  .    „  TTT   PQn  QO      n      ,  -,.  , 
*,    .  .  j  i    ,     f r        v      t  Wilkins,  III.  630-33.    Quod  dictu 

c  est  grant  scandale ! — Masselin,  Jour- '  ,  -,  '  , 

^  j      -ru  x    j    rn  i  nrr  nn        i  horrendum    est,   persaepe   loca    sacra, 

nal  des  Etats  de  Tours,  pp.  197-99.  ,.         .  T.  I   \        {  .  ,.      ' 

TTT1    ,  ,,     .       ,  .'  ^       ,•,.     ,        etiam    ipsa    Dei    templa,    momalium 

What  were  the  teachings  and  the  in-  ,    .  \  .    .       f     '    .    .      ^     . 

„  ..  ,  .  -  J p    .  .     ,    •  stupro  et  sanguinis  et  semims  enusi- 

fluence  on  the  people  or  such  a  priest-  \  e  i 

,       ,  u  j»  *  i     one  profanare  non  verentur. 

hood  may  be  guessed  from  a  remark  j  r 

in  one  of  the  sermons  of  Olivier  Mail- 1      3  Froude's  History  of  England,  I.  85. 


THE    MONASTIC    ORDERS.  .      393 

ties,  actually  emigrated  to  Barbary,  to  escape  the  severity  of 
Christian  discipline.  The  general  of  the  order  was  appealed 
to,  and  came  from  Rome  to  protect  his  persecuted  flock,  but 
Ximenes  was  unyielding,  and,  with  the  assistance  of  Queen 
Isabella,  he  forced  the  intruder  to  retire.  Then  Alexander 
VI.  endeavored  to  interfere  and  to  mitigate  the  sufferings  of 
those  who  were  condemned  to  live  according  to  their  vows,' 
but  again  the  royal  influence  was  exerted :  the  pope  withdrew 
his  opposition,  and  even  conferred  additional  powers  upon  the 
unflinching  reformer.1 

•  These  were  no  special  instances  of  peculiar  depravity  in 
the  monastic  orders.  A  bull  of  Alexander  VI.,  issued  in 
1496  for  the  purpose  of  reforming  the  Benedictines,  describes 
the  inhabitants  of  many  establishments  of  both  sexes  in  that 
ancient  and  honored  institution  as  indulging  in  the  most 
shameless  profligacy  ;  and  marriage  itself  was  apparently  not 
^infrequently  practised.2  Savonarola  did  not  hesitate  to  de- 
clare that  nuns  in  their  convents  became  worse  than  harlots.3 
Even  the  strictest  of  all  the  orders — the  Cistercian — yielded 
to  the  prevailing  laxity.  A  general  chapter,  held  in  1516, 
denounces  the  intolerable  abuse  indulged  in  by  some  abbots 
who  threw  off  all  obedience  to  the  rule,  and  dared  to  keep 
women  under  pretence  of  requiring  their  domestic  services.4 
To  fully  appreciate  the  force  of  this  indication,  it  is  requisite 
to  bear  in  mind  the  stringency  of  the  regulations  which  for- 
bade the  foot  of  woman  to  pollute  the  sacred  retirement  of 
the  Cistercian  monasteries.5 


1  Prescott,  Ferd.    and  Isab.    P.    n.  I  liquerunt    aut  matrimonia    contraxe- 
eliap.  5.  |  runt,  ad  monasteria,  si  ilia  exiverunt, 

2  Rursus  in  certis  monasters  dicti l  re<?ire  e*  habitum  monasticmn  ac 
ordinis,  ips*  moniales  apertis  clans-  7el™  «^um  reassumere  dicta  auc- 
tris.indifferenteromnes  homines  etiam  J?ntate  oompellatis.-App.  ad  Chron. 
suspectos  intromittunt,  ac  extra  mon- ;  Cassinens  Ed  Dubreul,  pp  902-3. 
asteria  in  curiis,  castris  et  plateis  va-  !  .  Jhe^wotfs  italicized  would  seem  to 
gantes,  plura  scandala  committunt  .  .  !  mdicate  that  monks  and  nuns  occa- 
Similiter  religiosiqni  in  sacris  ordini- ;  f.10na"7.  mamedi  ™thont  even  quit- 
bus  constituti  non  sunt,relicto  babito   ting  their  monasteries. 

regulari,  matrimonium  contrabere  di-  j      3  Perrens,    Jerome    Savonarole,    p. 
cuntur.  .  .  .  Praeterea  omnes  et  sin-  j  84. 

gulos  monacbos  et  moniales  reerulam  I      4  a,    .         rt  ,     ,-,.  ±  ,„« 

S.  Benedict!  hnJ«modi  exp™«.  y.l   J .£»  g*  «**"•  «"\,1B« 


tacite  professos,  qui  habitum 


monas- 


(Martene  et  Durand.  IV.  1636-7). 


ticum  sine  dispensation  legitima  re- 1      5  Thus,  in  1193,  the  general  chapter 


394: 


THE   FIFTEENTH    CENTURY. 


"What  was  the  condition  of  morals  in  Germany  may  be  in- 
ferred from  some  proceedings  of  the  chapter  of  Brunswick  in 
1476.  The  canons  intimate  that  the  commission  of  scandals 
and  crimes  has  reached  a  point  at  which  there  is  danger  of 
their  losing  the  inestimable  privilege  of  exemption  from  epis- 
copal jurisdiction.  They  therefore  declare  that  for  the  future 
the  canons,  vicars,  and  officiating  clergy  ought  not  to  keep 
their  mistresses  and  concubines  publicly  in  their  houses,  or 
live  with  them  within  the  bounds  of  the  church,  and  those 


of  the  order  promulgated  the  rule — 
"  Si  contigerit  mulieres  abbatiam  or- 
dinis  nostri  ex  consensu  intrare,  ipse 
abbas  a  patre  abbate  deponatur  abs- 
que retractatione.  Et  quicumque  sine 
conscientia  abbatis  introduxerit,  de 
domo  ejiciatur,  non  reversurus,  nisi 
per  generale  capitulum." — (Capit. 
General.  Cisterc.  aim.  1193,  cap.  6 — 
apud  Martene  et  Durand.  IV.  1276.) 
The  strictness  with  which  this  was 
enforced  is  illustrated  by  the  proceed- 
ings in  1205  against  the  abbot  of  the 
celebrated  house  of  Pontigny,  because 
he  had  allowed  the  Queen  of  France 
and  her  train  to  be  present  at  a  ser- 
mon in  the  chapel  and  a  procession  in 
the  cloisters,  and  to  spend  two  nights 
in  the  infirmary.  He  adduced  in  his 
defence  a  special  rescript  of  the  pope 
and  a  permission  from  the  head  of  the 
order  in  favor  of  the  queen,  but  these 
were  pronounced  insufficient,  and  sen- 
tence was  passed  that  he  merited  in- 
stant deposition  "  quia  tarn  enorme 
factum  sustinuit,  in  totius  ordinis  in- 
juriam,"  but  that  in  consequence  of 
the  powerful  intercession  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Rheims  and  other  bishops, 
he  was  allowed  to  escape  with  lighter 
punishment. — (Hist.  Monast.  Ponti- 
niac. — Martene  et  Durand.  III.  1245.) 
This  rule,  indeed,  was  almost  uni- 
versal in  the  ancient  monasteries. 
The  great  house  of  St.  Martin  of  Tours 
preserved  it  inviolate  until  the  incur- 
sions of  the  Northmen  rendered  it  an 
asylum  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  sur- 
roundiug  territory.  (Leonis  PP.  VII. 
Epist.  vi.)  In  that  of  Sithieu,  from 
the  time  of  its  foundation  early  in  the 
seventh  century,  it  was  preserved 
without  infraction  for  more  than  three 


centuries.  Even  the  license  of  the 
Carlovingian  revolution  did  not  cause 
its  inobservance  ;  and  when,  amid  the 
disorders  of  the  tenth  century,  the 
Counts  of  Flanders  became  lay  abbots 
of  the  convent,  and  discipline  was 
almost  forgotten,  the  mediation  of  two 
bishops  was  required  to  obtain  per- 
mission, about  the  year  940,  for  Adela, 
Countess  of  Flanders,  prostrated  with 
mortal  sickness,  to  be  carried  in  and 
laid  before  the  altar,  where  she  miracu- 
lously recovered. — (De  Mirac.  S.  Ber- 
tin.  Lib.  u.  c.  12. — Chron.  S.  Bertin. 
c.  23,  24.) 

So  when  Boniface  founded  the  ab- 
bey of  Fulda,  he  prohibited  the  en- 
trance of  women  in  any  of  the  build- 
ings, even  including  the  church.  The 
rule  was  preserved  uninfringed 
through  all  the  license  of  the  tenth 
and  eleventh  centuries,  and  when,  in 
1132,  the  Emperor  Lothair  came  to 
Fulda  to  celebrate  Pentecost,  his 
empress  was  not  allowed  to  witness 
the  ceremonies.  So  when  Frederic 
Barbarossa,  in  1135,  spent  his  Easter 
there,  he  was  not  permitted  to  enter 
the  town,  because  his  wife  was  with 
him.  In  1398  Boniface  IX.,  at  the 
request  of  the  Abbot  John  Merlaw,  re- 
laxed the  rule  and  permitted  women 
to  attend  at  the  services  of  the  church 
— shortly  after  which  it  was  destroyed 
by  lightning,  as  a  warning  for  the  fu- 
ture.—  (Paullini  Chron.  Badeslebiens. 
2  viii.) — At  the  Grande  Chartreuse, 
founded  by  St.  Bruno  towards  the  end 
of  the  eleventh  century,  women  were 
not  even  allowed  to  enter  on  the  lands 
of  the  community. — Chart.  S.  Hugon. 
Gratianopolit.  (Patrolog.  T.  166,  p. 
1571.) 


HUNGARY — THE   NORTH    OF    EUROPE.         395 

who  persist  in  doing  so  after  three  warnings  shall  be  suspended 
from  their  prebends  nntil  they  render  due  satisfaction.1  In 
this  curious  glimpse  into  the  domestic  life  of  the  cathedral 
close,  it  is  evident  that  the  worthy  canons  were  moved  by  no 
sense  of  their  guilt,  but  only  by  a  wholesome  dread  of  giving 
to  their  bishop  an  excuse  for  procuring  the  forfeiture  of  their 
dearly  prized  right  of  self-judgment. 

The  Hungarian  church,  by  a  canon  dating  as  far  back  as 
1382,  had  finally  adopted  a  pecuniary  mulct  as  the  most  effi- 
cacious mode  of  correcting  offenders.  The  fine  was  five 
marks  of  current  coin,  and  by  granting  one-half  to  the  in- 
former or  archdeacon,  and  the  other  to  the  archiepiscopal 
chamber,  it  was  reasonably  hoped  that  the  rule  might  be 
enforced.  The  guardians  were  not  faithful,  however,  for  two 
synods  of  Gran,  one  in  1450  and  the  other  in  1480,  reiterate 
the  complaint,  not  only  that  the  archdeacons  and  other  offi- 
cials kept  the  whole  fine  to  themselves,  but  also,  what  was 
even  worse,  that  they  permitted  the  criminals  to  persevere 
in  sin,  in  order  to  make  money  by  allowing  them  to  go 
unpunished.2  The  morals  of  the  regular  clergy  were  no 
better,  for  a  Diet  held  by  Yladislas  II.  in  1498  complained  of 
the  manner  in  which  abbots  and  other  monastic  dignitaries 
enriched  themselves  from  the  revenues  of  their  offices,  and 
then,  returning  to  the  world,  publicly  took  wives,  to  the  dis- 
grace of  their  order.3 

In  Pomerania  the  evil  had  at  length  partially  cured  itself, 
for  the  female  companions  of  the  clergy  seem  to  have  been 
regarded  as  wives  in  all  but  the  blessing  of  the  church. 
Benedict,  Bishop  of  Camin,  in  1492,  held  a  synod  in  which 
he  quaintly  but  vehemently  objurgates  his  ecclesiastics  for 
this  wickedness;  declares  that  no  man  can  part  such  couples 
joined  by  the  devil;  alludes  to  their  offspring  as  beasts  creep- 
ing over  the  earth,  and  has  his  spleen  peculiarly  stirred  by 


1  Publice  cohabitarecum  fornicariis  ,      2  Synod.     Strigonens.     ann.     1382, 

sen  oonoubinia  publicis  in  curiis  ca-  !  1450,  1480  (Battbyani,  III.  275,  481, 

nonicorumseuvicariorumacetiamtoto  !  557). — "Etquod  deterius  est,  crimi- 

districtu  ecclesiae  nostrse,  ac  ipsas  in  '  nosos   in   suis  excessibus  permanere 

domibus    ipsorum    detinere   non    de-  :  permittentes,  ut  eos  liberins    emun- 

beant,   nee   aliquis   eorum   debeat. —  j  gant,  et  nulla  sequatur  correctio." 

Statut.  Eccles.  in  Braunschweig,    cap.        ,  ~        ,     „  .,.._ 

75.    (Mayer,  Thes.Jur.Eccles.L  124.)  L'Sf1103:   TRe£'    ann-    1498'   c"   16* 
J  J  I  (Battbyani,  I.  5d1). 


396 


THE    FIFTEENTH    CENTURY 


the  cloths  of  Leyden  and  costly  ornaments  with  which  the 
fair  sinners  were  bedecked,  to  the  scandal  of  honest  women.1 
His  indignation  was  wasted  on  a  hardened  generation,  for  his 
successor,  Bishop  Martin,  on  his  accession  to  the  see  in  1499, 
found  the  custom  still  unchecked.  The  new  bishop  promptly 
summoned  a  synod  at  Sitten  in  1500,  where  he  reiterated  the 
complaints  of  Benedict,  adding  that  the  priests  convert  the 
patrimony  of  Christ  into  marriage  portions  for  their  children, 
and  procure  the  transmission  of  benefices  from  father  to  son, 
as  though  glorying  in  the  perpetuation  of  their  shame.2 
What  peculiarly  exasperated  the  good  prelate  was  that  the 
place  of  honor  was  accorded  as  a  matter  of  course  to  the 
priests  and  their  consorts  at  all  the  merry-makings  and  fes- 
tivities of  their  parishioners,  which  shows  how  fully  these 
unions  were  recognized  as  legitimate,  and,  apparently,  for 
prudential  reasons,  encouraged  by  the  people. 

Similar  customs,  or  worse,  doubtless  prevailed  in  Sleswick, 
for  when  Eggard  was  consecrated  bishop  in  1494,  he  signal- 
ized the  commencement  of  his  episcopate  by  forbidding  his 
clergy  to  keep  such  female  companions.  The  result  was  that 
before  the  year  expired  he  was  forced  to  abandon  his  see, 
and  five  years  later  he  died,  a  miserable  exile  in  Borne.3 


1  Wise  Hist.  Episc.  Camin.  c.  41. — 
These  irregularities  were  not  of  recent 
introduction.  The  canon  referred  to 
is  copied  almost  literally  from  a  sy- 
nod held  nearly  forty  years  before  by 
Bishop  Henning.  In  fact,  from  the 
description  given  by  the  latter  of  the 
drinking,  gambling,  trading  and  li- 
centiousness of  the  ecclesiastics  of 
Camin,  there  was  little  of  the  clerical 
character  about  them. — Synod.  Ca- 
min. ann.  1454  (Hartzheim,  V.  930). 

2  Wise  Hist.  Episc.  Camin.  c.  42.— 
"Mulieres  de  incontinentia  suspectas 
palam  et  publice  in  domibus  eorum 
tenent  et  habent,  non  quasi  famulas 
sed  tanquam  uxores  legitimas  vene- 
rantur,  in  mensa  una  comedunt  et 
bibunt,  vestimentis  pretiosis  et  cle- 
nodiis  ultra  modum  ad  instar  nobi- 
lium  honestarum  dominarum  exor- 
nant,  et  ut  semen  eorum  in  nationi- 
bus  pravis  et  adulterinis  crescat, 
omnem   substantiam,  de  patrimonio 


Christi  acquisitam,  in  dotem  filiornm 
et  filiarum,  ex  tam  damnabili  coitu 
procreatorum,  exponunt.  Et  quod 
deterius  est,  inquisitis  ingeniis,  in 
eorum  beneficiis  faciunt  successores, 
volentes  seternum  de  inquitatibus 
eorum  gloriari.  De  oppido  ad  oppi- 
dum  pariter  in  curribus  ad  solenni- 
tates  nuptiarum  et  convivia  laicorum 
vadunt,  eminentiorem  locum  cum 
eorum  Delila  usurpando." — Synod. 
Sedinens.  c.  5. 

In  West  Prussia,  in  1497,  the 
synod  of  Ermeland  expresses  itself 
as  scandalized  by  the  priests  taking 
their  companions  publicly  to  fairs 
and  other  gatherings,  and,  to  put  a 
stop  to  the  practice,  it  offers  to  secret 
informers  one-half  of  the  fine  im- 
posed on  such  indiscretions. — Synod. 
Warmiens.  ann.  1497,  c.  xxxix. 
(Hartzheim,  V.  668). 

3  Boissen  Chron.  Slesvicens.  ann. 
1494. 


EFFORTS    TO    ABROGATE    CELIBACY.  397 

That  the  clergy,  as  a  body,  had  become  a  stench  in  the 
nostrils  of  the  people  is  evident  from  the  immense  applause 
which  greeted  all  attacks  upon  them.  In  1476  a  rustic  pro- 
phet arose  in  the  hamlet  of  Niklaushausen,  in  the  diocese  of 
Wurzburg,  who  was  a  fit  precursor  of  Muncer  and  John  of 
Leyden.  John  of  Niklaushausen  was  a  swineherd,  who  pro- 
fessed himself  inspired  by  the  Virgin  Mary.  From  the 
Ehine-lands  to  Misnia,  and  from  Saxony  to  Bavaria,  immense 
multitudes  flocked  to  hear  him,  so  that  at  times  he  preached 
to  crowds  of  twenty  and  thirty  thousand  men.  His  doc- 
trines were  revolutionary,  for  he  denounced  oppression  both 
secular  and  clerical ;  but  he  was  particularly  severe  upon  the 
vices  of  the  ecclesiastical  body.  A  special  revelation  of  the 
Virgin  had  informed  him  that  God  could  no  longer  endure 
them,  and  that  the  world  could  not,  without  a  speedy  reforma- 
tion, be  saved  from  ihe  divine  wrath  consequent  upon  them.1 
The  unfortunate  man  was  seized  by  the  Bishop  of  Wurz- 
burg ;  the  fanatical  zeal  of  his  unarmed  followers  was  easily 
subdued,  and  he  expiated  at  the  stake  his  revolt  against  the 
powers  that  were. 

Such  being  the  state  of  ecclesiastical  morality  throughout 
Europe,  there  can  be  little  wonder  if  reflecting  men  sought 
occasionally  to  reform  it  in  the  only  rational  manner — not 
by  an  endless  iteration  of  canons,  obsolete  as  soon  as  pub- 
lished, or  by  ingeniously  varied  penalties,  easily  evaded  or 
compounded — but  by  restoring  to  the  minister  of  Christ  the 
right  to  indulge  legitimately  the  affections  which  bigotry 
might  pervert,  but  could  never  eradicate.  Even  as  early  as 
the  close  of  the  thirteenth  century,  the  high  authority  of 
Bishop  William  Durand  had  acknowledged  the  inefficacy  of 
penal  legislation,  and  had  suggested  the  discipline  of  the 
Greek  church  as  affording  a  remedy  worthy  of  considera- 
tion.2    As  the  depravity  of  the  church  increased,  and  as  the 


1  Annuntia   populo   fideli   meo,  et    — Trithem.      Chron.    Hirsaug.     aim. 
die  quod  Filius  meus  avaritiam,  su-  \  147(3. 

perbiam  et    luxuriam    clericorum   et        2  /^  •  •-,  .-!•• 

sacerdotum  amplius  sustinere  nee  2  Q™  Pe^e  in  ommbus  conc.his 
possit  nee  velit.  Unde  nisi  se  quan-  i  et  a  $*%£?  /^fiiis  pontificibus 
tocius  emendaverint,  totus  mundus  SUPer  cohlbe^a  jj  pnmenda  cle- 
propter  eorum  scelera  periclitabitur.  r,c0™m  incontinentia,  *  eorum  ho- 
t     r  *  ,  nestate     servanda     multa    hactenus 


398 


THE   FIFTEENTH   CENTURY, 


minds  of  men  gradually  awoke  from  the  slumber  of  the  dark 
ages,  and  shook  off  the  blind  reverence  for  tradition,  the  sug- 
gestion presented  itself  with  renewed  force.  When  the 
council  of  Bale  was  earnestly  engaged  in  the  endeavor  to 
restore  forgotten  discipline,  the  Emperor  Sigismund  laid 
before  it  a  formula  of  reformation  which  embraced  the  resto- 
ration of  marriage  to  the  clergy.  His  orator  drew  a  fearful 
picture  of  the  evils  caused  by  the  rule  of  celibacy — evils 
acknowledged  by  every  one  in  the  assembly — and  urged  that 
as  it  had  produced  more  injury  than  benefit,  the  wiser  course 
would  be  to  follow  the  example  of  the  Greek  church.1  A 
majority  of  the  council  assented  to  the  principle,  but  shrank 
from  the  bold  step  of  adopting  it.  Eugenius  TV.  had  just 
been  forced  to  acknowledge  the  legitimacy  of  the  bod}*-  as  an 
cecumenic  council;  the  strife  with  the  papacy  might  again 
break  forth  at  any  moment,  and  it  was  npt  politic  to  venture 
on  innovations  too  audacious.  The  conservatives,  therefore, 
skilfully  eluded  the  question  by  postponing  it  to  a  more 
favorable  time,  and  the  postponement  was  fatal. 

One  of  the  most  celebrated  members  of  the  council,  Cardi- 
nal Nicholas  Tudeschi,  surnamed  Panormitanus,  whose  pre- 
eminence as  an  expounder  of  the  canon  law  won  for  him  the 
titles  of  "  Canonistarum  Princeps"  and  "Lucerna  Juris,"  de- 
clared that  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  was  not  essential  to 
ordination  or  enjoined  by  divine  law;  and  he  records  his 
unhesitating  opinion  that  the  question  should  be  left  to  the 
option  of  the  individual — those  who  had  resolution  to  pre- 
serve their  purity  being  the  most  worthy,  while  those  who 
had  not  would  be  spared  the  guilt  which  disgraced  them.2 


emanaverint  constituta ;  et  nullate- 
nus  ipsorum  reformari  quiverit  cor- 
rectio  morum :  .  .  .  videretur  pensan- 
dum  an  expediret  et  posset  provided 
quod  in  ecclesia  Occidentali,  quantum 
ad  votum  continent!®,  servaretur 
consuetudo  ecclesise  Oriental  is,  quan- 
tum ad  promovendos,  potissime  quum 
tempore  Apostolorum  consuetudo  ec- 
clesiaeOrientalis  servaretur. — Durand. 
de  Modo  General.  Concil.  P.  n.  rubr. 
46  (Calixtus,  p.  537). — Durand  was 
the  author  of  several  works  of  wide 
repute,   which  were   among  the  first 


books  on  which  the  early  printers 
tried  their  art.  His  Speculum  Judi- 
ciale  earned  for  him  the  well-known 
distinctive  title  of  Speculator. 

1  Zaccaria,  Nuova  Giustificaz.  pp. 
121-2. — Milman,  Latin  Christ.  Book 
xiii.  chap.  12. 

2  De  Thou,  Hist.  Univ.  Lib.  xxxvi. 
Not  having  the  works  of  Tudeschi  to 
refer  to,  I  give  his  remarks  as  quoted 
byVilladiego  (Fuero  Juzgo,  p.  177, 
No.  85)  from  Gloss,  in  cap.  olim,  de 
cleric,  conjug. — "  Quod  deberet  eccle- 


OPPOSITION    TO   CELIBACY.  399 

So  iEneas  Sylvius,  who  as  Pius  II.  filled  the  pontifical  throne 
from  1458  to  1464,  and  who  knew  by  experience  how  easy  it 
was  to  yield  to  the  temptations  of  the  flesh,  is  reported  to 
have  said  that  marriage  had  been  denied  to  priests  for  good 
and  sufficient  reasons,  but  that  still  stronger  ones  now  re- 
quired its  restoration.1  And  we  have  already  seen  that 
Eugenius  IV.,  in  1441,  and  Alexander  VI.,  in  1496,  granted 
permission  of  marriage  to  several  military  orders,  as  the  only 
mode  of  removing  the  scandalous  license  prevailing  among 
them. 

This  question  of  the  power  of  the  pope  to  dispense  with 
the  necessity  of  celibacy  seems  to  have  attracted  some  atten- 
tion about  this  period.  In  1505,  Geoffroy  Boussard,  after- 
wards Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Paris,  published  a 
tract  discussing  it  and  leaning  to  the  affirmative,  without 
venturing  to  decide  the  point  absolutely.  Cardinal  Caietano 
afterwards  treated  the  subject,  and  concluded  that  such  power 
was  inherent  in  the  papal  prerogative.2 

When  the  advantages  and  the  necessity  of  celibacy  thus 
were  doubted  by  the  highest  authorities  in  the  church,  it  is 
no  wonder  if  those  who  were  disposed  to  question  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  past  were  Jed  to  reject  it  altogether.  In  1479 
John  Burckhardt,  of  Oberwesel,  graduate  of  Tubingen,  and 
Doctor  of  Theology,  in  his  capacity  of  preacher  at  Worms, 
openly  disseminated  doctrines  which  differed  in  the  main  but 
little  from  those  of  Wickliffe  and  Huss.  He  denied  the 
authority  of  popes,  councils,  and  the  fathers  of  the  church  to 
regulate  matters  either  of  faith  or  discipline.  The  Scripture 
was  the  only  standard,  and  no  one  had  a  right  to  interpret  it 
for  his  brethren.     The  received  observances  of  religion,  pray- 


sia  facere  sicut  bonus  niedicus,  ut  si 
medicina,  experientia  docente,  potius 
officit  quam  prodit,  earn  tollat ;  sic 
eorum  voluntati  relinqueretur,  ita  ut 
sacerdos  qui  abstinere  noluisset,  pos- 


2  Gregoire,  Mariage  des  Pretres  en 
France,  p.  50.  Boussard  had  no  hesi- 
tation in  admitting  that  sacerdotal 
marriage  was  permitted  until  the  pon- 
tificate of  Siricius.     The  time  had  not 


set  uxorein  ducere,  cum  quotidie  illi-  •.  yet  arrived  when  the  attacks  of  the 

Reformers  drove  the  defenders  of  celi- 
bacy to  prove  for  it  an  apostolic  origin. 


cito  coitu  maculentur 

1  Sacerdotibus  magna  ratione  sub- 
latas  nuptias,  majori  restituendas 
videri. — Platina  in  Vit.  Pii  II. 


400  THE    FIFTEENTH    CENTURY. 

ers,  fasts,  indulgences,  were  all  swept  away,  and  universal 
liberty  of  conscience  proclaimed  to  all.  Of  course,  sacerdotal 
celibacy  shared  the  same  fate,  as  a  superstitious  observance, 
contrived  by  papal  ingenuity  in  opposition  to  evangelical 
simplicity.1  Thus  his  intrepid  logic  far  outstripped  the  views 
of  his  predecessors,  and  Luther  afterwards  acknowledged  the 
obligations  which  he  owed  to  the  fearless  reasoning  of  John 
of  Oberwesel.  Yet  he  had  not  the  spirit  of  martyrdom,  and 
the  Inquisition  speedily  forced  him  to  a  recantation,  which 
was  of  little  avail,  for  he  soon  after  perished  miserably  in 
the  dungeon  in  which  he  had  been  thrust.2 

Still  more  remarkable  as  an  indication  of  the  growing  spirit 
of  independence  was  an  event  which  in  July,  1485,  disturbed 
the  stagnation  of  the  centre  of  theological  orthodoxy — the 
Sorbonne.  A  certain  Jean  Laillier,  priest  and  licentiate  in 
theology,  aspiring  to  the  doctorate,  prepared  his  thesis  or 
"  Sorbonique,"  in  which  he  broached  various  propositions 
savoring  strongly  of  extreme  Lollardism.  lie  denied  the 
supremacy  of  the  pope,  and  indeed  reduced  the  hierarchy  to 
the  level  of  simple  priesthood;  he  rejected  confession,  abso- 
lution, and  indulgences ;  he  refused  to  acknowledge  the  autho- 
rity of  tradition  and  legends,  and  insisted  that  the  fasts 
enjoined  by  the  church  had  no  claim  to  observance.  Celibacy 
was  not  likely  to  escape  so  audacious  an  inquirer,  and  accord- 
ingly, among  his  postulates  were  three,  declaring  that  a  priest 
clandestinely  married  required  no  penitence ;  that  the  East- 
ern clergy  committed  no  sin  in  marrying,  nor  would  the 
priests  of  the  Western  church,  if  they  were  to  follow  the 
example ;  and  that  celibacy  originated  in  1073,  in  the  decre- 
tals of  Gregory  VII.,  whose  power  to  introduce  the  rule  he 
more  than  questioned.  The  Sorbonne,  as  might  be  antici- 
pated, refused  the  doctorate  to  so  rank  a  heretic,  and  Laillier 
had  the  boldness  not  only  to  preach  his  doctrines  publicly, 


Quam    [sc.    continentiaui]    dixit  I  quod  neque  Christus  neque  apostoli 


esse  superstitiosam  et  a  Romania 
pontificibus  contra  Evangelium  exco- 
gitatam,  et  ideo  sacerdotibus  minime 
necessariam,  sed  eorum  arbitrii,  si 
velint   coutiuere   vel   non,  propterea 


eontinentiam  prseceperint. — Trithem. 
Chron.  Hirsaug.  ami.  1479. 

2  Serrarii  Hist.  Rer.  Mogunt.  Lib. 
I.  c.  34. 


OPPOSITION    TO    CELIBACY.  401 

but  even  to  appeal  to  the  Parlement  for  the  purpose  of 
forcing  his  admission  to  the  Sorbonne.  The  Parlement 
referred  the  matter  to  the  Bishop  of  Paris  and  to  the  Inqui- 
sitor; Laillier's  audacity  failed  him,  and  he  agreed  to  recant. 
He  committed  the  unpardonable  fault  of  being  a  half  century 
too  early.1 

The  corruption  of  the  church  establishment  thus  had 
reached  a  point  which  the  dawning  enlightenment  of  the  age 
could  not  much  longer  endure.  The  power  which  had  been 
intrusted  to  it,  when  it  was  the  only  representative  of  culture 
and  progress,  had  been  devoted  to  selfish  purposes,  and  had 
become  the  instrument  of  unmitigated  oppression  in  all  the 
.details  of  daily  life.  The  immunity  which  had  been  neces- 
sary to  its  existence  through  centuries  of  anarchy  had  be- 
come the  shield  of  unimaginable  vices.  The  wealth,  so  freely 
lavished  upon  it  by  the  veneration  of  Christendom,  was  wasted 
in  the  vilest  excesses.  All  efforts  at  reformation  from  within 
had  failed ;  all  attempts  at  reformation  from  without  had  been 
successfully  crushed  and  sternly  punished.  Intoxicated  with 
centuries  of  domination,  the  muttered  thunders  of  growing 
popular  discontent  were  unheeded,  and  its  claims  to  spiritual 
and  temporal  authority  were  asserted  with  increasing  vehe- 
mence, while  its  corruptions  were  daily  displayed  before  the 
people  with  more  careless  cynicism.  There  appeared  to  be 
no  desire  on  the  part  of  the  great  body  of  the  clergy  to  make 
even  a  pretence  of  the  virtue  and  piety  on  which  were  based 
their  claims  for  reverence,  while  the  laity  were  daily  growing 
less  reverent,  were  rising  in  intelligence,  and  were  becoming 
more  inclined  to  question  where  their  fathers  had  been  con- 
tent to  believe.  Such  a  complication  could  have  but  one 
result. 


Fleuiy,  Hist.  Eccles.  Li  v.  cxvi.  No.  30-38. 


26 


XXV. 
THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY. 

The  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century  witnessed  an  omi- 
nous breaking  down  of  the  landmarks  of  thought.  The 
revival  of  letters,  which  was  fast  rendering  learning  the 
privilege  of  all  men  in  place  of  the  special  province  of  the 
legal  and  clerical  professions;  the  discovery  of  America,  which 
destroyed  reverence  for  primeval  tradition,  and  accustomed 
men's  minds  to  the  idea  that  startling  novelties  might  yet  be 
truths ;  the  invention  of  printing,  which  placed  within  the 
reach  of  all  inquirers  who  had  a  tincture  of  education  the 
sacred  writings  for  investigation  and  interpretation ;  the  Eu- 
ropean wars,  commencing  with  the  Neapolitan  conquest  of 
Charles  VIIL,  which  brought  the  nations  into  closer  contact 
with  each  other,  and  carried  the  seeds  of  culture,  civilization, 
and  unbelief,  from  Italy  to  the  farthest  Thule;  all  these 
causes,  with  others  less  notable,  had  been  silently  but  effectu- 
ally wearing  out  the  remnants  of  that  pious  and  unquestion- 
ing veneration  which  for  ages  had  lain  like  a  spell  on  the 
human  mind. 

In  this  bustling  movement  of  politics  and  commerce,  arts 
and  arms,  science  and  letters,  religion  could  not  expect  to 
escape  the  spirit  of  universal  inquiry.  Even  before  opinion 
had  advanced  far  enough  to  justify  examination  into  doctrinal 
points  and  dogmas,  there  was  a  general  readiness  to  regard 
the  shortcomings  of  sacerdotalism,  in  the  administration  of  its 
sacred  trust,  with  a  freedom  of  criticism  which  could  not  long 
fail  to  destroy  the  respect  for  claims  of  irrefragable  authority. 
John  of  England  and  the  Emperor  Otho  might  gratify  indi- 
vidual spite,  in  the  intoxication  of  anticipated  triumph,  by 


REVOLT  AGAINST  THE  CHURCH.      403 

insultingly  defying  the  sacerdotal  power.  Philippe-le-Bel,  a 
man  far  in  advance  of  his  age,  might  reduce  the  papacy  to 
temporary  subjection  by  means  of  rare  instruments  such  as 
Guillaume  de  Nogaret.  Philippe  de  Valois,  with  the  aid  of 
his  civil  lawyers,  might  essay  to  limit  the  extent  of  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction.  Wickliffe,  and  Huss,  and  Savonarola 
might  raise  the  standard  of  opposition  to  papal  usurpation — 
but  these  were  sporadic  instances  of  rebellion,  resulting  either 
from  the  selfish  ambition  of  rulers  or  the  fanatical  enthusiasm 
of  individuals,  unsupported  by  the  concurrent  opinion  of  the 
masses  of  the  people,  and  their  permanent  results  were  rather 
remote  than  direct.  At  the  period  to  which  we  have  arrived, 
however,  the  disposition  to  criticize  the  abuses  of  the  eccle- 
siastical system,  to  note  its  shortcomings,  and  to  apply  reme- 
dial measures  was  general,  and  savored  little  of  the  respect 
which  an  infallible  church  had  for  so  many  centuries  incul- 
cated as  one  of  the  first  of  Christian  duties.  Its  past  services 
were  forgotten  in  present  wrongs.  Its  pretensions  had,  at 
one  time,  enabled  it  to  be  the  protector  of  the  feeble,  and  the 
sole  defence  of  the  helpless;  but  that  time  had  passed. 
Settled  institutions  had  replaced  anarchy  throughout  Europe, 
and  its  all-pervading  authority  would  no  longer  have  been  in 
place,  even  if  exercised  for  the  common  benefit.  When  it 
was  notorious,  however,  that  the  powers  and  immunities 
claimed  by  the  church  were  everywhere  employed  for  the 
vilest  ends,  their  anachronism  became  too  palpable,  and  their 
destruction  was  only  a  question  of  time. 

Signs  of  the  coming  storm  were  not  wanting.  In  1510 
a  series  of  complaints  against  the  abuses  of  Rome  was 
solemnly  presented  to  the  emperor.  The  German  churches, 
it  was  asserted,  were  confided  by  the  successors  of  St.  Peter 
to  the  care  of  those  who  were  better  fitted  to  be  ostlers 
than  pastors  of  men,  and  the  pope  was  significantly  told 
that  he  should  act  more  tenderly  and  kindly  to  his  chil- 
dren of  Teutonic  race,  lest  there  might  arise  a  persecution 
against  the  priesthood,  or  a  general  defection  from  the  Holy 
See,  after  the  manner  of  the  Hussites.1     The  emperor  was 


Ecclesiarum  regimina  minus  dig-  J  qui   ad  mulos  magis    quara  homines 
(Remise  videlicet)  committuntur,  |  pascendos  et  regendos  essent  idonei. 


404 


THE   REFORMATION   IN    GERMANY 


warned,  in  his  efforts  to  obtain  the  desired  reform,  not  to  incur 
the  censures  and  enmity  of  the  pope,  in  terms  which  show 
that  only  the  political  effects  of  excommunication  were 
dreaded,  and  that  its  spiritual  thunders  had  lost  their  terrors. 
He  was  farther  cautioned  against  the  prelates  in  general,  and 
the  mendicant  friars  in  particular,  in  a  manner  denoting  how 
little  reverence  was  left  for  them  in  the  popular  mind,  and 
how  thoroughly  the  whole  ecclesiastical  system  had  become 
a  burden  and  reproach,  a  thing  of  the  past,  an  excrescence  on 
society,  and  no  longer  an  integral  part  of  every  man's  life, 
and  the  great  motive  power  of  Christendom.1 


It  was  evident  that  the  age  was  rapidly  outstripping  the 
church,  and  that  the  latter,  to  maintain  its  influence  and 
position,  must  conform  to  the  necessities  of  progress  and  en- 
lightenment. On  previous  occasions  it  had  done  so,  and  had, 
with  marvellous  tact  and  readiness,  adapted  itself  to  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  situation  in  the  long  series  of  vicissitudes 
which  had  ended  by  placing  it  supreme  over  Europe.  But 
centuries  of  almost  uninterrupted  prosperity  had  hardened  it. 
The  corruption  which  attends  upon  wealth  had  rendered 
wealth  a  necessity,  and  that  wealth  could  only  be  had  by 
perpetuating  and  increasing  the  abuses  which  caused  ominous 
murmurs  of  discontent  in  those  nations  not  fortunate  enough 
to  be  defended  by  Concordats  or  Pragmatic  Sanctions.  The 
church  had  lost  its  suppleness,  and  was  immovable.  A  reform 
such  as  was  demanded,  while  possibly  increasing  its  influence 
over  the  souls  of  men,  would  have  deprived  it  of  control  over 


— Gravamina  German.  Nationis,  No. 

VII. 

Mitius  ergo  summus  pontifex,  velut 
pius  pater,  filiorum  suorum  amator, 
ac  fidelis  et  prudens  pastor,  cum  filiis 
suis  Germanicse  nationis  agat,  ne  pro- 
pediem  vel  in  universos  Christi  sacer- 
dotes  persequutio  suboriatur,  vel  in- 
star  Bohemorum  plerique  ab  ecclesia 
deficiant  Romana.  —  Remed.  contra 
Gravamina.  (Freher.  et  Struv.  II. 
677-8.) 

In  the  previous  century  some  re- 
monstrances  against  grievances  had 


been  uttered,  but  in  a  very  different 
tone  from  this. 

1  Provideat  etiam  Csesarea  majestas 
ne  fratres  mendicantes  contra  ipsam 
prgedicent,  qui  Sedi  Apostolicse  liben- 
ter  deferunt,  timentes  perdere  privi- 
legia  sua,  utinam  Christo  et  naturse 
innixa ;  quamvis  justissimam  causam 
dudum  habuissent  contra  tantam 
avaritiam  tantosque  abusus  prsedi- 
candi.  .  .  .  Tiineat  Csesarea  majestas 
omnes  prselatos  ecclesiarum,  prsecipue 
prsepositos,  qui  ex  juramento  tenentur 
avisare  papam. — Avisamenta  ad  Cae- 
sar. Majest.     (Ibid.  p.  680.) 


STUBBORNNESS   OF    ROME.  405 

their  purses;  reform  meant  poverty.  The  sumpter-mule 
loaded  with  gold,  wrung  from  the  humble  pittance  of  the 
Westphalian  peasant,  under  pretext  of  prosecuting  the  war 
against  the  infidel,  would  no  longer  cross  the  Alps  to  stimu- 
late with  its  treasure  the  mighty  genius  of  Michael  Angelo, 
or  the  fascinating  tenderness  of  RafYaele;  to  provide  princely 
revenues  for  the  bastards  of  a  pope,  or  to  pay  mercenaries 
who  were  to  win  them  cities  and  lordships ;  to  fill  tfrfc  ante- 
chamber of  a  cardinal  with  parasites,  and  to  deck  his  mistresses 
with  the  silks  and  jewels  of  Ind;  to  feed  needy  men  of  let- 
ters and  scurrilous  poets ;  to  soothe  the  itching  palms  of  the 
Rota,  and  to  enable  all  Rome  to  live  on  the  tribute  so  cun- 
ningly exacted  of  the  barbarian.1  The  wretched  ending  of 
the  council  of  Bale  rendered  any  internal  reformation  im- 
possible which  did  not  derive  its  initiative  and  inspiration 
from  Rome,  as  was  shown  by  the  failure  of  the  council  of 
Pisa.  In  Rome,  it  would  have  required  the  energy  of  Hil- 
debrand,  the  stern  self-reliance  of  Innocent,  the  unworldly 
asceticism  of  Celestin  combined,  to  even  essay  a  reform  which 
threatened  destruction  so  complete  to  all  the  interests  accu- 
mulated by  sacerdotalism  around  the  Eternal  City.  Leo  X. 
was  neither  Hildebrand,  nor  Innocent,  nor  Celestin.  With 
his  voluptuous  nature,  elegant  culture,  and  easy  temper,  it  is 
no  wonder  that  he  failed  to  read  aright  the  signs  of  the  times, 
and  that  he  did  not  even  recognize  the  necessity  which  should 
impose  upon  him  a  task  so  utterly  beyond  his  powers.  The 
fifth  council  of  Lateran  had  no  practical  result.  Blindly  he 
plunged  on;  money  must  be  had  at  any  cost,  until  the  salva- 
tion mongering  of  Tetzel,  little  if  any  worse  than  that  of  his 
predecessors,  could  no  longer  bear  the  critical  spirit  of  the 
age,  and  Teutonic  insubordination  at  length  found  a  mouth- 
piece in  the  Monk  of  Wittenberg. 


1  See,   for  instance,   the    mode   in  the  clergy  was  threatened:  "Veruni 

which  the  annates  of  the  see  of  Mainz  etiam  incitantur   ad   rebellionem,  et 

were    raised   from    10,000    florins    to  quaerendam    utcunque   libertatem,  et 

25,000 ;  and  this  latter  sum  was  ex-  ubi   possunt    inter    se   susurrant   de 

acted  seven  times  in  one  generation,  saevitia  in   clerum." — Remed.  contra 

resulting  in  taxation  on  the  peasantry  Gravam.  (Freher.  et  Struv.  II.  G78.) 
so  severe  that  an  insurrection  against  | 


406 


THE    REFORMATION    IN   GERMANY. 


It  would  be  a  mistake  to  credit  Luther  with  the  Eeforma- 
tion.  His  bold  spirit  and  masculine  character  gave  to  him 
the  front  place,  and  drew  around  him  the  less  daring  spirits  ' 
who  were  glad  to  have  a  leader  to  whom  to  refer  their 
doubts,  and  on  whom  their  responsibility  might  partly  rest; 
yet  Luther  was  but  the  exponent  of  a  public  sentiment  which, 
had  long  been  gaining  strength,  and  which  in  any  case  would 
not  have  lacked  expression.  In  that  great  movement  of  the 
human  mind  he  was  not  the  cause,  but  the  instrument.  Had 
his  great  opponent  Erasmus  enjoyed  the  physical  vigor  and 
practical  boldness  of  Luther,  he  would  have  been  handed 
down  as  the  heresiarch  of  the  sixteenth  century.1  He,  too, 
had  borne  his  full  share  in  preparing  the  minds  of  men  for 
what  was  to  come,  and  nothing  can  give  us  a  more  thorough 
conviction  of  the  readiness  of  the  public  to  welcome  a  radical 
change  than  the  wealth  of  indignant  bitterness  which  Eras- 
mus, himself  a  canon  regular  and  a  priest,  heaps  upon  all 
orders  of  the  church,  and  the  immense  applause  which 
everywhere  greeted  his  attacks.  His  sarcastic  humor,  his 
biting  satire,  his  exquisite  ridicule,  nowhere  find  a  more 
congenial  subject  than  the  vices  of  the  monks,  the  priests, 
the  prelates,  the  cardinals,  and  even  of  the  pope  himself.  It 
affords  a  curious  illustration  of  the  times  to  read  those  writings 
which  a  century  earlier  would  have  consigned  him  to  the 
dungeon  or  the  stake,  and  to  reflect  that  he  was  not  only  the 
admiration  of  both  the  learned  and  the  vulgar  of  Europe, 
but  also  the  petted  protege  of  king  and  kaisar,  the  corre- 
spondent of  popes,  and  finally  the  most  honored  champion  of 
the  system  which  he  had  so  ruthlessly  reviled,  and  which  he 
never  ceased  to   deplore.2      The   extraordinary   favor   with 


1  The  Epist.  Obscur.  Viror.  proba- 
bly reflects  the  general  sentiment  of 
the  conservatives  of  the  time  in  de- 
nouncing Erasmus  and  the  learned 
wits  as  heretics.  ''Quia  juvenes  vo- 
lunt  se  jequiparare  senibus,  et  disci- 
puli  magistris,  et  jurista?  theologis,  et 
est  magna  confusio,  et  surgunt  multi 
hseretici  et  pseudochristiani,  Iohann. 
Reuchlin,  Erasmus  Roterodamus :  Bi- 
libaldus  nescio  quis,  et  Ulricus  Hut- 
tenus,  Hermannus  Buschiu3,  Jaco- 
bus Wimphelingus,  qui  scripsit  con- 


tra Augustinenses,  et  Sebastianus 
Brandt,  qui  scripsit  contra  prsedica- 
tores,  etc." 

So,  at  a  later  date,  after  Luther  had 
arisen,  the  "  Conciliabulum  Theolo- 
gistarum"  classes  them  together  "  Ha- 
beo  etiam  ego  unum  spiritum  fami- 
liarem;  ilium  ego  volo  mittere  ad 
Lutherum  et  Erasmum  de  nocte  in 
lectum,  ut  eos  tribulet  et  vexet." 


2  The  popular  view  of  the  priest- 
>od  is  well  summed  up  by  Erasmus 


hood 


ERASMUS    AND   VON    HUTTEN 


407 


which  his  works  were  received  by  all  classes  shows  how 
fully  he  was  justified  in  the  indignation  which  he  so  un- 
sparingly lavished  on  clerical  abuses,  and  how  eagerly  the 
public  appreciated  one  who  could  so  well  express  that  which 
was  felt  by  all.  Equally  significant  was  the  popularity  of  the 
"  Epistolas  Obscurorum  Virorum,"  in  which  the  learned  wits 
of  the  new  school  poured  forth  upon  the  clergy  a  broad  and 
homely  ridicule  which  exactly  suited  the  taste  of  the  age.1 


in  the  following  dialogue:  "Cocles,  • 
Cur  mavis  sacerdotium  quam  uxorem  ? 
— Pamphagus,  Quia  mihi  placet  otium. 
Arridet   Epicurea  vita. — Co.  At  mea  i 
sententia  suavius  vivunt,  quibus  est 
lepida  puella  domi,  quam  complectan- 
tur,   quoties   libet. — Pam.   Sed  adde,  j 
nonnunquam  quum  non  libet.     Amo  ; 
voluptatem    perpetuam.      Qui    ducit 
uxorem,  uno  mense  felix  est :  cui  con- 
tingit  optimum  sacerdotium,  in  om- ' 
nem  usque  vitam  fruitur  gaudio. —  ! 
Co.  Sed  tristis  est  solitudo,  adeo  ut 
neo  Adam  suaviter  victurus  fuerit  in 
Paradiso  nisi   Deus    illi   adjunxisset 
Evam. — Pam.  Non  deerit  Eva  cui  sit 
opulentum  sacerdotium,"  &c. — Eras-  j 
mi  Colloq.  de  Captandis  Sacerdotiis.     ' 
It    is,    however,    perhaps,    in    the 
"Encomium    Moriae"   that   he   gives 
fullest  rein  to  his  bitter  satire.     His 
own   sad  experience    of    conventual 
life  gave  him  special  opportunity  of 
declaiming  against  the  monks  "  qui 
se  vulgo  religiosos  ac   monachos  ap- 
pellant, utroque  falsissimo  cognomine, 
quum  et  bona  pars  istorum  longissime  [ 
absit  a  religione,  et  nulli  magis  om-  j 
nibus  locis  sint  obvii."     Their  habit, 
their  observances,   their    discipline, 
their  ignorance,   idleness,  vices,  are  I 
recounted  at  great    length  and  with 
the  most  stinging  ridicule — "  rursum 
alios  qui  pecuniae  contactum  ceu  aco- 
nitum  horreant,  nee   a  vino   interim 
nee    a    mulierum     contactu    tempe- 
rantes."     Even  the  names  of  the  va-  : 
rious  orders  cannot  escape  his  biting  ] 
humor.      "  Porro    magna    felicitatis 
pars    est    in    cognoraentis,    dum    hi 
Funigeros   appellari   se    gaudent,   et 
inter  hos  alii   Coletas   alii  Minores : 
aliiMinimos:  alii  Bullistas.    Rursum 
hi  Benedictinos,  illi  Bernardinos,  hi  i 
Brigidenses,   illi    Augustinenses  :    hi 
(iuilhelmitas,  illi  Jacobitas,  quasi  vero  [ 


parum  est  dici  Christianos" — and  he 
makes  Folly  dismiss  them  with  the 
contemptuous  valediction  "  Verum 
ego  istos  histriones,  tam  ingratos 
beneficiorum  meorum  dissimulatores 
quam  improbos  simulatores  pietatis 
libenter  relinquo."  The  secular 
priesthood,  the  bishops,  and  even  the 
pope  himself,  are  treated  with  little 
more  respect,  and  the  general  negli- 
gence and  inefficiency  of  the  whole 
ecclesiastical  body  are  summed  up — 
"  Rursus  sacerdotes  qui  sese  vocant 
seculares,  quasi  mundo  initiati  non 
Christo,  in  regulares  onus  hoc  devol- 
vunt,  regulares  in  monachos,  monachi 
laxiores  in  arctiores,  omnes  simul  in 
mendicantes,  mendicantes  in  Carthu- 
sienses,  apud  quos  solos  sepulta  latet 
pietas,  et  adeo  latet  ut  vix  unquam 
liceat  conspicere.  Itidem  pontifices 
in  messe  pecuniaria  diligentissimi 
labores  illos  nimium  Apostolicos  in 
episcopos  relegant,  episcopi  in  pas- 
tores,  pastores  in  vicarios,  vicarii  in 
fratres  mendicantes.  Hi  rursum  in 
eos  retrudunt  a  quibus  ovium  lana 
tondetur." 

The  "  Encomium  Morise"  had  an 
immediate  and  immense  success. 
Numberless  editions  were  required  to 
supply  the  avidity  of  the  learned, 
and  it  was  immediately  translated 
into  almost  every  language  of  Europe 
for  the  benefit  of  the  unlearned.  It 
appeared  in  1509;  the  Colloquies  in 
1516. — When  these  works  had  pro- 
duced their  result,  their  dangerous 
tendencies  were  discovered,  and  they 
enjoyed  the  honor  of  being  included 
in  the  first  Index  Expurgatorius. 
(App.  Concil.  Trident.) 

1  The  "Epistolse  Obscurorum  Viro- 
rum" was  certainly  published  before 
1516,  probably  in  1515.  (Ebert,  Bib- 


408 


THE    REFORMATION    IN    GERMANY. 


Not  less  indicative  of  the  dangerous  state  of  opinion  was 
an  address  delivered  in  the  Diet  held  at  Augsburg  in  1518, 
when  the  legates  of  Leo  X.  appealed  to  Germany  for  a  tithe 
to  assist  in  carrying  on  the  war  against  the  Turk.  The 
orator  who  replied  to  them  did  not  restrain  his  indignation 
at  the  deplorable  condition  of  the  church,  which  he  attributed 
solely  to  the  worldly  ambition  of  the  popes.  Since  they  had 
united  temporal  with  spiritual  dominion — or,  rather,  since 
they  had  allowed  temporal  interests  to  divert  them  wholly 
from  their  spiritual  duties — all  had  gone  amiss.  Christendom 
was  despoiled  from  without,  and  filled  with  tumult  within. 
Eeligion  was  openly  contemned;  Christ  was  daily  bought 
and  sold;  the  sheep  were  shorn,  and  the  pastor  took  no  care 
of  them.  He  did  not  even  hesitate  to  charge,  with  emphasis 
and  at  much  detail,  that  the  money  extorted  from  Germany 
under  pious  pretexts  was  squandered  in  Italy  on  the  private 
quarrels  and  for  the  aggrandizement  of  the  papal  houses,  and 
those  of  the  members  of  the  sacred  college.1  A  state  of  feel- 
ing which  dictated  and  permitted  such  a  declaration  from  the 
supreme  representative  body  of  the  empire,  when  brought 
into  collision  with  the  pretensions  of  the  Holy  See,  now 
more  exaggerated  than  ever,  could  have  but  one  result — 
Revolution. 

With  all  this  license  Germany  was  still,  by  the  force  of 
circumstances,  less  independent  of  the  papacy  than  any  other 
Tramontane  power.  What  was  going  on  elsewhere  in  Europe 
may  be  guessed  from  the  humiliating  conditions  exacted  in 
1517  of  Silvester  Darius,  the  papal  collector,  on  his  assuming 


Hog.  Diet.  s.  v.) — It  is  equally  severe 
upon  the  monks — "  Tune  ille  dixit : 
ego  distinguo  de  monachis,  quia  ac- 
cipiuntur tribus  modis.  Primo,  pro 
Sanctis  et  utilibus,  sed  illi  sunt  in 
coelo.  Secundo,  pro  nee  utilibus  nee 
inutilibus,  et  illi  sunt  picti  in  eccle- 
sia.  Tertio  modo  pro  illis  qui  adhuc 
vivunt,  et  illi  multis  nocent,  etiam 
non  sunt  sancti,  quia  ita  superbi  sunt 
sicut  unus  saecularium.  Et  ita  liben- 
ter  habent  pecunias  et  pulchras  mu- 
lieres,  etc."  And  again,  "Ubi  enim 
diabolus  pervenirevel  aliquid  efficere 
non  potest,  ibi  semper  mittit  unam 


malam  antiquam  vetulam  vel  uuum 
monaclium." 

1  "  Pontifices  vero  Romani,  post- 
quam  cceperunt  prophana  cum  sacris 
conjungere,  imo  relictis  sacris  solum 
prophana  admirari,  quarn  bene  con- 
sultum  fuerit  reipublicae  Christiana?, 
eventus  comprobavit.  Amissis  ex- 
ternis,  interna  infinitis  seditionibus 
conturbantur ;  divina  dispiciuntur, 
venditur  Christus,  lana  ovium  ton- 
detur,  de  custodia  nullum  studium, 
etc."  —  Orat.  in  Comit.  Augustan. 
(Freher.  et  Struv.  II.  702.) 


luther's  hesitation.  409 

the  functions  of  his  important  office  in  England.  He  bound 
himself  by  oath  not  to  execute  any  letters  or  mandates  of  the 
pope  injurious  to  the  king,  the  kingdom,  or  the  laws ;  not  to 
transmit  from  England  to  Eome,  without  a  special  royal 
license,  any  gold,  or  silver,  or  bills  of  exchange;  not  to 
leave  the  kingdom  himself  without  a  special  license  under 
the  great  seal ;  with  other  less  notable  restrictions,  the  prac- 
tical effect  of  all  being  to  place  him  and  his  duties  wholly 
under  the  control  of  the  king.1  The  position  of  England  had 
changed  since  the  days  of  Innocent  and  John.  Had  the  dis- 
sensions of  Germany  permitted  equal  progress,  Luther  might 
perhaps  have  only  been  known  as  an  obscure  but  learned 
orthodox  doctor,  and  the  inevitable  revolt  of  half  of  Chris- 
tendom have  been  postponed  for  a  century. 

It  is  not  my  province  to  follow  in  detail  the  vicissitudes  of 
the  Eeformation,  but  only  to  indicate  briefly  its  relations  with 
sacerdotal  asceticism.  Luther,  at  first,  like  Wickliffe  and 
Huss,  paid  no  attention  to  the  subject.  It  seems  rather  sin- 
gular that,  when  attacking  the  system  of  the  Eoman  church, 
neither  of  these  reformers  should  have  recognized  the  import- 
ance of  celibacy  as  a  portion  of  the  claim  to  exclusive  sanctity 
on  which  the  structure  rested,  and  how  great  was  the  prac- 
tical power  which  it  conferred  for  mutual  attack  and  defence. 
Still  more  remarkable  is  it,  that,  starting  with  denying  the 
extreme  doctrine  of  justification  by  works,  with  its  concomi- 
tant abuses,  and  after  arriving  by  degrees  to  the  point  of 
rejecting  all  tradition  and  recurring  to  the  sole  authority  of 
the  Scriptures,  with  the  right  of  private  interpretation,  the 
traditional  rule  of  celibacy  should  not  have  shared  the  fate 
of  other  traditional  observances  of  sacerdotalism.  Even  as 
with  Wickliffe  his  followers  were  bolder  than  their  leader,  so 
with  Luther  his  admirers  were  the  first  to  claim  a  privilege 
which  he  had  not  ventured  to  mark  with  the  seal  of  his  appro- 
bation. 

During  the  earlier  portion  of  his  career,  Luther  abstained 
from  touching  the  subject.     In  fact,  when,  on  the  31st  of  Oc- 


Rjmer,  Foedera  XIII.  586-7. 


410 


THE    REFORMATION    IN    GERMANY 


tober,  1517,  be  nailed  on  tbe  church  door  of  Wittenberg  bis 
celebrated  ninety-five  propositions,  notbing  was  further  from 
bis  expectations  tban  to  create  a  heresy,  a  scbism,  or  even  a 
general  reform  in  tbe  church.  He  bad  simply  in  view  to 
vindicate  bis  ideas  on  tbe  subject  of  justification,  derived 
from  St.  Augustin,  against  tbe  Thomist  doctrines  wbicb  bad 
been  exaggerated  into  tbe  monstrous  abuses  of  Tetzel  and  bis 
fellows.'  In  tbe  general  agitation  and  opposition  to  Eome 
wbicb  pervaded  society,  however,  it  was  impossible  for  a 
bold  and  self-reliant  spirit  sucb  as  bis  not  to  advance  step  by 
step  in  a  career  of  wbicb  tbe  ultimate  goal  was  as  little  fore- 
seen by  himself  as  by  others.  Yet  his  progress  was  wonder- 
fully slow.  Even  in  1519  he  still  considered  himself  within 
the  pale  of  tbe  church,  and  held  that  no  wrong  committed 
by  her  could  justify  a  separation  or  excuse  any  resistance  to 
the  commands  of  a  pope.2  Events  soon  after  forced  him  to 
further  and  more  dangerous  innovations,  yet  when  Leo  X.,  in 
June,  1520,  issued  bis  celebrated  bull,  "  Exsurge  Domine"  to 
crush  the  rising  heresy,  in  the  forty-one  errors  enumerated  as 
taught  by  Luther,  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  doctrine  spe- 
cially inimical  to  ascetic  celibacy.3 

Although  this  condemnation  and  excommunication,  by 
shutting  the  gate  of  reconciliation,  drove  Luther  into  open 
opposition,  and  led  him  to  attack  tbe  fundamental  positions  of 
sacerdotal  Catholicism,  he  still  abstained  from  interference 
with  the  obligation  of  perpetual  continence.  Absorbed  in 
the  discussion  of  doctrinal  points,  he  apparently  had  not 
leisure,  or  was  not  as  yet  prepared  to  assert  tbe  practical 
deductions  from  his  own  theories.  In  1520  he  already  denied 
the  indelible  character  of  priestly  ordination,  which  was  the 


1  Even  in  this,  Luther  was  by  no 
means  the  first.  In  the  Epistolse  Ob- 
scuroruui  Virorum,  a  vender  of  indul- 
gences is  introduced,  as  praising  his 
wares  from  the  pulpit  "  Ecce,  hie  ha- 
betis  indulgentias,  et  literas  indulgen- 
tiales,et  quod  scriptum  est  inillas  est 
ita  verum  et  credendum  sicut  Evange- 
lium.  Et  quando  accipitis  illas  indul- 
gentias, tunc  estis  ita  absoluti,  sicut 
Christus  met  venisset  et  absoluisset 
vos.     Tunc  Doctor  Reyss  tenuit  oppo- 


situm,  dicens :  Nihil  est  comparandum 
cum  Evangelio,  et  qui  bene  facit  bene 
vivit.  Et  si  aliquis  centies  acceperit 
istas  indulgentias,  et  non  bene  vixerit, 
peribit,  nee  adjuvabitur  per  istas  in- 
dulgentias." 

2  Ranke,  Reformation  in  Germany, 
B.  ii.  chap.  3. 

3  Mag.  Bull.  Roman.     Ed.  1692,  I. 
64. 


SACERDOTAL    MARRIAGE    COMMENCED.        411 

twin  sister  of  celibacy  in  separating  the  clergy  from  the  mass 
of  believers ;  long  since  he  had  contemned  the  authority  of 
tradition  and  the  binding  force  of  canon  and  decretal  in 
building  up  a  structure  of  religious  observances  not  founded 
on  Scripture;  yet  still  the  discipline  of  the  church  seemed 
sacred  in  his  eyes,  and  the  social  corruptions  springing  from 
it  called  forth  no  protest  or  remedy.  Yet  it  seems  almost 
incredible  that  he  should  not  have  recognized  from  the  first 
how  utterly  his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  destroyed 
the  efficacy  of  celibacy,  as  of  all  other  ascetic  observances. 

His  followers  led  the  way  in  a  path  which  he  had  either 
passed  unobserved  or  feared  to  enter.  It  was  during  his  en- 
forced seclusion  in"Wartburg,from  April,  1521,  to  March,  1522, 
even  before  any  theoretical  discussions  on  the  point  had  taken 
place,  that  Bartholomew  Bernhardi,  pastor  of  Kammerich, 
near  Wittenberg,  solved  the  matter  in  the  most  practical  way 
by  obtaining  the  consent  of  his  parish  and  celebrating  his 
nuptials  with  all  due  solemnity.  Albert,  Archbishop  of 
Mainz  and  Magdeburg,  addressed  to  Frederic,  Elector  of  Sax- 
ony, a  demand  for  the  rendition  of  the  culprit,  which  that 
prudent  patron  of  the  Reformation  skilfully  eluded,  and  Bern- 
hardi published  a  short  defence  or  apology  in  which  he  de- 
nounced the  rule  of  celibacy  as  a  "frivolam  traditiunculam." 
He  argued  the  matter,  quoting  the  texts  which  since  his  time 
have  been  generally  employed  in  support  of  sacerdotal  mar- 
riage; he  referred  to  Peter  and  Philip,  Spiridon  of  Cyprus,  and 
Hilary  of  Poitiers,  as  examples  of  married  bishops,  quoted 
the  story  of  Paphnutius,  and  relied  on  the  authority  of  the 
Greek  church.  This  apparently  did  not  satisfy  the  arch- 
bishop, for  Bernhardi  felt  obliged  to  address  a  second  apology 
to  Frederic  of  Saxony,  to  whom  he  appealed  for  protection 
against  the  displeasure  of  his  ecclesiastical  superiors.1  In 
spite  of  molestation,  he  continued  in  the  exercise  of  his 
priestly  functions  until  death.  Less  fortunate  were  his  im- 
mediate imitators.  A  priest  of  Mansfeldt  who  took  to  him- 
self a  wife  was  thrown  into  prison  at  Halle  by  the  Archbishop 
of  Mainz,  and  Jacob  Siedeler,  pastor  of  Glashiitten,  in  Meissen, 


1  Lutheri  Opp.  Ed.  Vuitemb.  T.  II.  pp.  209,  211. 


412  THE    REFORMATION    IN    GERMANY. 

who  was  guilty  of  the  same  crime,  perished  miserably  in  the 
dungeon  of  Stolpen,  to  which  he  was  committed  by  Duke 
George  of  Saxony.1 

The  enthusiastic  Carlostadt,  relieved  for  the  time  from  the 
restraint  of  Luther's  cooler  wisdom,  threw  himself  with  zeal 
into  this  new  movement  of  reform,  and  lost  no  time  in  justi- 
fying it  by  a  treatise  in  which  he  argued  strenuously  in  favor 
of  priestly  marriage,  and  energetically  denounced  the  monas- 
tic vows  as  idle  and  vain.  Luther,  however,  in  his  retreat, 
was  inclined  to  regard  these  proceedings  with  disapprobation. 
His  letters  to  Melancthon  show  that  he  had  paid  the  subject 
little  attention,  but  that  he  felt  doubts  whether  those  who 
were  vowed  to  chastity  could  break  their  vows,  and  that  he 
was  entirely  opposed  to  such  marriages.2  Either  with  or 
without  his  consent,  however,  his  friends  lost  no  time  in 
adopting  the  new  dogma  which  they  proclaimed  to  the  world  in 
the  most  authoritative  manner.  During  the  same  year  Luther's 
own  Augustinian  order  held  a  provincial  synod  at  Witten- 
berg, in  which  they  formally  threw  open  the  doors  of  the 
monasteries,  and  permitted  all  who  desired  it  to  return  to  the 
world,  declaring  that  in  Christ  there  was  no  distinction  be- 
tween Jew  and  Greek,  monk  and  layman,  and  that  a  vow  in 
opposition  to  the  gospel  was  no  vow,  but  an  impiety.  Cere- 
monies, observances,  and  dress  were  pronounced  futile;  those 
who  chose  to  abide  by  the  established  rule  were  free  to  do 
so,  but  their  preferences  were  not  to  be  a  law  to  their  fellows. 
Those  who  were  fitted  for  preaching  the  word  were  advised 
to  depart ;  those  who  remained  were  obliged  to  perform  the 
manual  labor  which  had  been  so  prominent  a  portion  of  prime- 
val Teutonic  monasticism,  and  mendicancy  was  strictly  for- 
bidden. In  a  few  short  and  simple  canons  a  radical  rebellion 
thus  declared  itself  in  the  heart  of  an  ancient  and  powerful 
order,  and  principles  were  promulgated  which  were  totally 
at  variance  with  sacerdotalism  in  all  its  protean  forms.3 


1  Spalatin.  Annal.  aim.  1521.  I  omnibus  vel  manere  in  monasteria  vel 

2  H     k     A  jp  v   f  cqo  a    I  deserere    monasticen.       Quando   qui 

'     ***  "  P""  '*'    ~  '    in  Christo  sunt,  nee  Judsei  nee  Grseci, 

3  Synod.  Vuiteinberg.  (Lutheri  nee  inonachi  nee  laici  sunt.  Et  votum 
Opp.  I.  201.)  The  first  canon  suffi-  J  contra  Evangelium  non  votuin  sed 
ciently  illustrates   the   spirit   of  the  I  impietas  est." 

whole.       "  Primo    ergo    permittimus  i 


INCREASE    OF    SACERDOTAL    MARRIAGE.       413 

This  broad  spirit  of  toleration  did  not  suit  the  views  of  the 
more  progressive  reformers.  In  Luther's  own  Augustinian 
convent  at  Wittenberg,  one  of  his  most  zealous  adherents, 
Gabriel  Zwilling,  preached  against  monachism  in  general, 
taking  the  ground  that  salvation  required  the  renunciation 
of  their  vows  by  all  who  had  been  ensnared  into  assuming 
the  cowl;  and  so  great  was  his  success  that  thirteen  monks  at 
once  abandoned  the  convent.  Yet  even  on  Luther's  return 
to  Wittenberg,  he  at  first  took  no  part  in  the  movement.  He 
retained  his  Augustinian  habit,  and  continued  his  residence 
in  the  convent;  but  before  the  close  of  the  year  (1522)  he 
put  forth  his  work,  "De  Votis  Monasticis,"  in  which  he  fully 
and  finally  adopted  the  views  of  his  friends,  and  showed 
himself  as  an  uncompromising  enemy  of  monasticism.1  How 
difficult  it  was  for  him,  however,  to  shake  off  the  habitudes 
in  which  he  had  been  trained  is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  even 
at  the  end  of  1523,  he  still  sometimes  preached  in  his  cowl 
and  sometimes  without  it.2 

Notwithstanding  the  zealous  opposition  of  the  orthodox 
ecclesiastical  authorities,  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  Witten- 
berg were  not  long  in  finding  earnest  defenders  and  imitators. 
But  few  such  marriages,  it  is  true,  are  recorded  in  1522, 
although  Balthazar  Sturmius,  an  Augustinian  monk  of  Sax- 
ony, committed  the  bolder  indiscretion  of  marrying  a  widow 
of  Franconia.  In  that  year,  however,  we  find  Franz  von 
Sickingen,  knight  errant  and  condottiero,  who  was  then  a 
power  in  the  state,  advocating  the  emancipation  and  marriage 
of  the  religious  orders,  in  a  letter  to  his  father-in-law,  Die- 
drich  von  Henthschuchsheym.  Still  more  important  was  the 
movement  inaugurated  in  Switzerland  by  Ulrich  Zwingli, 
who,  with  ten  other  .monks  of  Notre-Dame-des-Hermites,  on 
the  2d  of  July,  1522,  addressed  to  Hugo  von  Hohenlandem- 
berg,  Bishop  of  Constance,  a  petition  requesting  the  privilege 
of  marriage.    The  petitioners  boldly  argued  the  matter,  citing 


1  Lutheri  Opp.  II.  269  et  seq.— In  :  2  Spalatin.  Annal.  ami.  1523.— The 
this  edition  the  tract  is  dated  1522  in  fact  that  Spalatin  recorded  whether 
the  index  and  1521  in  the  text.  Henke  ,  he  wore  the  cowl  or  not,  shows  the 
and  Ranke,  however,  agree  in  assign-  ;  importance  which  Luther's  friends  at- 
ing  it  to  a  period  subsequent  to  his  ;  tached  to  his  example  with  respect 
return  from  Wartburg.  i  to  it. 


414 


THE    REFORMATION    IN   GERMANY 


the  usual  Scriptural  authorities,  and  adjured  the  bishop  in 
the  most  pressing  terms  to  grant  their  request.  They  warned 
him  that  a  refusal  might  entail  ruinous  disorders  on  the 
whole  sacerdotal  body,  and  that,  unless  he  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity to  guide  the  movement,  it  might  speedily  assume  a 
most  disastrous  shape.  They  asserted,  indeed,  that  not  only 
in  Switzerland,  but  elsewhere,  it  was  generally  believed  that 
a  majority  of  ecclesiastics  had  already  chosen  their  future 
wives,  and  that  a  return  to  the  old  order  of  things  was  beyond 
the  power  of  man  to  accomplish.1 

In  this  assertion,  Zwingli  and  his  companions  followed  per- 
haps rather  the  dictates  of  their  hopes  than  of  their  judgment, 
for  the  revolution  was  by  no  means  as  universal  or  immediate 
as  their  threats  or  warnings  would  indicate.  Its  progress, 
nevertheless,  was  rapid  and  decided.  Luther,  whom  we  have 
seen  in  1522  still  hesitating  whether  to  approve  the  daring 
innovation  of  his  followers,  in  April,  1523,  himself  officiated 
and  preached  a  sermon  in  favor  of  matrimony  to  a  multitude 
of  distinguished  friends  at  the  wedding  of  Wenceslas  Link, 
vicar  of  the  Augustinian  order,  one  of  his  oldest  and  most 
valued  supporters,  who  had  stood  unflinchingly  by  him  when 
arraigned  by  Cardinal  Caietano  before  the  Emperor  Maxi- 
milian at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg.2  Not  less  important  was  the 
countenance  given  to  the  innovation,  two  days  later,  by  the 
Elector  Frederic,  who  consented  to  act  as  sponsor  at  the  bap- 
tism of  the  first-born  of  Franz  Gunther,  pastor  of  Loch";3  the 


1  Jam  rumor  est  plerosque  conjuges 
dudum  designasse,  non  raodo  apud 
Helvetios  nostros,  verum  etiam  passim 
apud  omnes,  quod  sopire  profecto  su- 
pra vires  fuerit  non  modo  tuas,  sed 
longe  potentiores,  pace  tua  dixerimus. 
— Spalatin.  Annal.  ann.  1522. 

2  Spalatin.  Annal.  ann.  1523. — 
Thammii  Chron.  Colditens.  —  Link 
married  a  daughter  of  Suicer,  a  law- 
yer of  Oldenburg  in  Meissen,  and  the 
bride's  example  was  shortly  after- 
wards followed  by  her  two  sisters, 
one  of  whom  was  united  to  Wolfgang 
Fuess,  parish  priest  of  Kolditz,  and 
formerly  a  monk  of  Gera  ;  while  the 
other  accepted  the  addresses  of  the 


parish  priest  of  Kitscheren.  (Spalatin, 
ubi  sup.) 

3  Spalatin,  ubi  sup. — How  these  in- 
novations were  regarded  in  Rome  is 
manifested  in  a  minatory  epistle  ad- 
dressed, in  1522,  by  Adrian  II.  to  the 
Elector  Frederic  of  Saxony.  "  Et  cum 
ipse  sit  apostata  ac  professionis  sua? 
desertor,  ut  plurimos  sui  faciat  simi- 
les, sancta  ilia  Deo  vasa  polluere  non 
veretur,  consecratasque  virgines  et 
vitam  monasticam  professas  extrahere 
a  monasteriis  suis,  et  mundo  imo  dia- 
bolo,  quem  semel  abjuraverunt,  red- 
dere  .  .  .  Christi  sacerdotes  etiam 
vilissimis  copulat  meretricibus  etc." 
(Hartzheim,  VI.  192.) 

The  Lutherans  did  not  escape  the 


EFFORTS   AT    REPRESSION.  415 

ceremony  being  performed  by  the  honest  chronicler  Spalatin 
himself. 

It  is  curious  to  see  in  Spalatin's  diary  how  each  successive 
marriage  is  recorded  as  a  matter  of  the  utmost  interest,  the 
hopes  of  the  reformers  being  strengthened  by  every  accession 
to  the  ranks  of  those  who  dared  to  defy  the  rules  which  had 
been  deemed  irreversible  for  centuries.  Nor  was  it  an  act 
without  danger,  for  no  open  rupture  had  as  yet  taken  place 
between  the  temporal  power  of  any  state  and  the  central 
authority  at  Eome.  Even  in  Electoral  Saxony,  though  Duke 
Frederic,  by  a  cautious  course  of  passive  resistance,  afforded 
protection  to  the  heretics,  yet  he  still  considered  himself  a 
Catholic,  and  the  ritual  of  his  chapel  was  unaltered.  Else- 
where the  ecclesiastical  power  was  bent  on  asserting  its  su- 
premacy over  the  licentious  apostates  who  ventured  to  sully 
their  vows  and  prostitute  the  sacrament  of  marriage  by  their 
incestuous  unions,  and  wherever  the  discipline  of  the  church 
could  be  enforced,  it  was  done  unsparingly.  The  temper  of 
these  endeavors  to  repress  the  movement  is  well  illustrated 
by  the  regulations  promulgated  under  the  authority  of  the  Car- 
dinal-legate Campeggi,  when,  in  1524,  he  succeeded  in  uniting 
a  number  of  reactionary  princes  at  the  Assembly  of  Eatis- 
bon.  Deploring  the  sacrilege  committed  in  the  marriages  of 
priests  and  monks,  which  were  becoming  extremely  common, 
he  granted  permission  to  the  secular  powers  to  seize  all  such 
apostates  and  deliver  them  to  the  ecclesiastical  officials,  sig- 
nificantly restraining  them,  however,  from  inflicting  torture. 
The  officials  were  empowered  to  condemn  the  offenders  to 
perpetual  imprisonment,  or  to  hand  them  over  to  the  secular 
arm — a  decent  euphuism  for  a  frightful  death ;  and  any  negli- 


eharge  of  indiscriminate  licentious- !  theran  doctrines,  asserting  "Moniali- 
ness,  which  we  have  seen  asserted  of  bns  (proli8eternumdedecus!)pra?stare 
every  heresy  in  every  age,  for  the  !  potius  quam  sub  jugo  esse  monastico, 
purpose  of  exciting  popular  odium,  suadent,  quibus  eapropter  vice  scor- 
In  1527,  at  the  Council  of  Mainz,  Fre-  torumexecrandoabutuntur  connubio: 
deric  Nausea,  surnamed  Blancicampi-  !  conjugia,  ut  cynici,  posthabita  omni 
anus,  afterwards   Bishop    of  Vienna,  j  honestate,  communia  faciunt." —  Sy- 


delivered  an  address  on  the  subject 
of  ecclesiastical  reform,  in  which  he 
inveighed   bitterly   against    the   Lu- 


nod.  Mogunt.  ann.  1527  (Hartzheim, 
VI.  207). 


416  THE    REFORMATION    IN    GERMANY. 

gence  on  the  part  of  the  ordinaries  exposed  those  officers  to 
the  pains  and  penalties  of  heresy.1 

In  spite  of  all  this,  however,  the  votaries  of  marriage  had 
the  support  and  sympathy  of  the  great  body  of  the  people. 
It  shows  how  widely  diffused  and  strongly  implanted  was 
the  conviction  of  the  evils  of  celibacy,  when  those  who  four 
centuries  earlier  had  so  cruelly  persecuted  their  pastors  for 
not  discarding  their  wives  now  urged  them  to  marriage,  and 
were  ready  to  protect  them  from  the  consequences  of  the  act. 
Thus,  during  the  summer  of  1524,  Wolfgang  Fabricius  Capito, 
provost  of  St.  Thomas  and  priest  of  the  church  of  St.  Peter 
at  Strasburg,  by  the  request  of  his  parishioners,  took  to  him- 
self a  wife,  and  when  the  chapter  of  canons  endeavored  to 
interfere  with  him,  the  threatening  aspect  of  the  populace 
warned  them  to  desist.  Nor  was  this  the  only  case,  for 
Bishop  William  undertook  to  excommunicate  all  the  married 
priests  of  Strasburg,  when  the  senate  of  the  city  resolutely 
espoused  their  cause,  and  even  the  authority  of  the  legate 
Campeggi  could  not  reconcile  the  quarrel.2 

Even  higher  protection  was  sometimes  not  wanting.  When 
Adrian  II.,  in  1522,  reproached  the  Diet  of  Niirnberg  with  the 
inobservance  of  the  decree  of  Worms  and  the  consequent 
growth  of  Lutheranism,  and  King  Ferdinand,  in  the  name  of 
the  German  states,  replied  that  a  council  for  the  reformation 
of  the  church  was  the  only  remedy,  the  question  of  married 
priests  arose  for  discussion.  The  German  princes  alleged 
that  they  could  find  in  the  civil  and  municipal  laws  no  pro- 
visions for  the  punishment  of  such  transgressions,  and  that 
the  canons  of  discipline  could  only  be  enforced  by  the  ecclesi- 
astical authorities  themselves,  who  ought  not  to  be  interfered 
with  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty  by  the  secular  authorities.3 


1  Reformat.  Cleri  German,  ann.  I  and  nuns  transgressed  the  laws  in  any 
1524,  c.  26  (Goldast.  III.  491).  '  other  way, the  secular  tribunals  would 

*  Spalatin.  Annal.  ann.  1524.  I  Punifh+  tbe*'     He  hf*  th**'  tho^h 

r  '  apostates,  they  were  still  ecclesiastics, 

3  Respons.  S.  R.  I.  Ordinum  No-  j  only  amenable  to  the  courts  Christian, 
rimb.  cap.  18  (Goldast.  Const.  Imp.  |  and  he  protested  against  any  violation 
I.  455). — With  this  the  Legate  Chere-  I  of  the  privileges  and  jurisdiction  of 
gato  professed  himself  to  be  content,  I  the  church  such  as  would  be  commit- 
but  he  bitterly  complained  of  an  inti-  j  ted  in  bringing  them  before  a  civil 
ination  that  if  these  apostate  priests  |  magistrate.     (Ibid.  p.  456.) 


EMANCIPATION   OF    NUNS.  417 

This  was  scant  encouragement,  but  even  this  was  often  denied 
in  practice.  When,  in  1523,  Conrad  von  Tungen,  Bishop  of 
Wurzburg,  threw  into  prison  two  of  his  canons,  the  doctors 
John  Apel  and  Frederic  Fischer,  for  the  crime  of  marrying 
nuns,  the  Council  of  Kegency  at  Nurnberg  forced  him  to 
liberate  them  in  a  few  weeks.1  This  latter  fact  is  the  more 
remarkable,  since,  but  a  short  time  previous  (March  6th,  1523), 
the  Imperial  Diet  at  Nurnberg,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
same  Regency,  had  expressed  its  desire  to  give  every  assist- 
ance to  the  ecclesiastical  authority  in  enforcing  the  canons. 
In  a  decree  on  the  subject  of  the  religious  disturbances,  it 
adopted  the  canon  law  on  celibacy  as  part  of  the  civil  law, 
pronouncing  sentence  of  imprisonment  and  confiscation  on  all 
members  of  the  clergy  who  should  marry,  and  ordering  the 
civil  power  in  all  cases  to  assist  the  ecclesiastical  in  its  efforts 
to  punish  offenders.2 

The  emancipation  of  nuns  excited  considerable  public  in- 
terest, and  in  many  instances  was  effected  by  aid  from  without. 
A  certain  Leonhard  Kopp,  who  was  a  determined  enemy  of 
monachism,  rendered  himself  somewhat  notorious  by  exploits 
of  the  kind.  One  of  the  earliest  instances  was  that  by  which, 
on  Easter  eve,  1523,  at  considerable  risk,  he  succeeded  in  car- 
rying off  from  the  convent  of  Nimptschen,  in  Meissen,  eight 
young  virgins  of  noble  birth,  all  of  whom  were  subsequently 
married,  and  one  of  whom  was  Catharine  von  Bora.3  The 
example  was  contagious.  Before  the  month  was  out  six 
nuns,  all  of  noble  blood,  left  the  abbey  of  Sormit^,  and  soon 
after  eight  escaped  from  that  of  Peutwitz,  at  Weissenfels.4 
Monks  enfranchised  themselves  with  still  less  trouble.     At 


1  Spalatin.  aim.  1523.  quam  impediantur,   sed  illis   ad  de- 

«  De  oersonis  ecclesiasticis   matri  fensionem  ecclesiastic®  jurisdictionis 

L>e  persoms  ecclesiasticis   matn-  auxiliumqueferant.— Edict.  No- 

nioinum  contrahentibus,  item  de  reli-  r.    r            .H         ,ro.-,       ,n  ,  0    " 

.     .               .     ,             '.,  nmb.  Convent,  ann.  1523,  c.  10, 18. 19 

eiosis  persoms  deserentibus  sua  mo-  ,o^ia—*    tt    un       mi-      en      .    \ 

&     ,     .               .                     .   .           .    .,.  (broldast.  II.   lol). — This    illustrates 

nastena,  cum  in  communi  uire  civih  ■  ,,    ,,             .„   A              ,      [ '    x1 

1(        '    ,.     ..             .."   .  J  ..  well  the  vacillating  conduct  of  the 

nulla  peculianter  constituta  sit  poena,  .,    e                 ,D   .      *r,          .    , 

i  ■     »     *        .        ■   x    -i,                *  council  of  regency  durincr  this  period, 

valeant   et   rata  suit   lllse  quae  jure  °       J            g  »»« jwiw. 

canonico  in  tales  decernuntur,amissio  !      3  Chron.  Torgavia3  —  Spalatin.  An- 

videlicet  libertatis,  privilegiorum,  be-  ;  nal.  ann.  1523. 

neficiorum  et  aliarum  reruin.     Atque        .  Q     ,'  ..        ,  . 

ut  ordinarii  in  exequutione   istarum  \         &Pala"n.  uDi  sup. 

poenarum  a  civili  magistratu  nequa-  ! 

27 


418 


THE    REFORMATION    IN   GERMANY. 


Niirnberg,  in  1524,  the  Augustinians  in  a  body  threw  off 
their  cowls  and  proclaimed  themselves  citizens.1 

Finally,  on  the  13th  of  June,  1525,  Luther  gave  the  last 
and  most  unquestionable  proof  of  his  adhesion  to  the  practice 
of  sacerdotal  marriage  by  publicly  espousing  Catharine  von 
Bora,  whom  we  have  seen  escaping  two  years  before  from  the 
convent  of  Nimptschen.  Scandal,  it  would  seem,  had  been 
busy  with  the  intimacy  between  the  pious  doctor  and  the 
fair  renegade,  who  had  spent  nearly  the  whole  period  of  her 
liberty  at  Wittenberg,  and  Luther,  with  the  practical  decision 
of  character  which  distinguished  him,  suddenly  resolved  to 
put  the  most  effectual  stop  to  rumors  which  his  enemies 
doubtless  were  delighted  to  circulate.  The  marriage  took  his 
friends  completely  by  surprise ;  many  of  them  disapproved  of 
it,  and  Justus  Jonas,  in  communicating  the  fact  to  Spalatin, 
characterizes  it  as  a  startling  event,  and  evidently  feels  that 
his  correspondent  will  require  the  most  incontrovertible  evi- 
dence of  the  fact,  when  he  declares  that  he  himself  had  been 
present  and  had  seen  the  bridegroom  in  the  marriage  bed.2 


1  Spalatin.  Annal.  arm.  1524. 

2  Rei  insigniter  novae.  .  .  Heri  adfui 
rei  et  vidi  sponsum  in  thalamo  jacen- 
tem. — Ibid.  ann.  1525. 

Pomeranius,  a  priest  of  Wittenberg, 
in  writing  to  Spalatin,  gives  as  the 
reason  of  Luther's  marriage  —  "Ma- 
ligna fama  effecit  ut  Doct.  Martin  us 
insperatofieret  conjunx;"  and  Luther, 
in  a  letter  to  the  same,  admits  this 
even  more  distinctly — "  Os  obstruxi 
infamantibus  me  cum  Catherina  Bo- 
rana."  That  his  action  was  not  gene- 
rally approved  by  his  friends  is  ap- 
parent from  his  asking  Michael  Stiefel 
to  pray  that  his  new  life  may  sanctify 
him  —  ''Nam  vehementer  irritantur 
sapientes,  etiam  inter  nostros." — Spa- 
latin. ubi  sup. 

That  surprise  or  opposition  should 
have  been  aroused  is  singular,  when 
he  had  already  proclaimed  the  most  I 
extreme  views  in  favor  of  matrimony.  J 
As  early  as  1522  he  delivered  his 
famous  "  Sermo  de  Matrimonio,"  in; 
which  he  enjoins  it  in  the  strictest  j 
manner  as  a  duty  incumbent  upon 
all.    Thus,  in  considering  the  impedi- 1 


ments  to  marriage,  he  treats  of  vows, 
concerning  which  he  says  :  "  Sin  vo- 
tum  admissum  est,videndum  tibi  est, 
ut  supra  memoravi,num  tribus  evira- 
torum  generibus  comprehendaris,  quse 
conjugio  ademit  Deus,  ubi  te  in  aliquo 
istorum  uno  non  repereris,  votum  re- 
scindas,  monasticen  deseras  oportet ; 
moxque  ad  naturalem  sociam  adjun- 
gas  te  matrimonii  lege." — P.  i.  c.  8 
(Opp.  V.  121).  To  this  must  be  added 
his  decided  opinions  on  the  subject  of 
conjugal  rights,  as  developed  in  the 
well-known  passage  which  has  excited 
so  much  animadversion,  and  which,  if 
we  are  to  interpret  it  literally,  conveys 
a  doctrine  which  sounds  so  strangely 
as  the  precept  of  a  teacher  of  morality. 
In  treating  of  the  causes  of  divorce, 
he  remarks  :  "Tertia  ratio  est,  ubi  al- 
ter alteri  sese  subduxerit,  ut  debitam 
benevolentiam  persolvere  nolit,  aut 
habitare  cum  renuerit.  Reperiuntur 
enim  interdum  adeo  pertinaces  uxores, 
qui  etiam  si  decies  in  libidinem  pro- 
labentur  mariti  pro  sua  duritia  non 
curarent.  Hie  oportunum  est  ut  ma- 
ritus  dicat  'Si  tu  nolueris,  alia  volet.' 


INFLUENCES   ADVERSE   TO    CELIBACY.        419 

It  is  not  difficult  to  explain  why  there  was  so  ready  and 
general  an  acquiescence  in  the  abrogation  of  a  rule  established 
by  the  veneration  of  so  many  centuries.  Not  only  had  the 
doctrines  of  the  reformers  taken  a  deep  and  firm  hold  of  the 
popular  heart  throughout  Germany,  destroying  the  reverence 
for  tradition  and  antiquity,  and  releasing  the  human  mind 
from  the  crushing  obligation  of  blind  obedience,  but  there 
were  other  motives,  natural,  if  not  particularly  creditable. 
The  ecclesiastical  foundations  had  long  neglected  the  duties 
of  charity,  hospitality,  and  education,  on  which  were  grounded 
their  claims  to  their  broad  lands  and  rich  revenues.  While, 
therefore,  the  temporal  princes  might  be  delighted  with  the 
opportunity  of  secularizing  and  seizing  the  church  possessions, 
the  people  might  reasonably  hope  that  the  increase  of  their 
rulers'  wealth  would  alleviate  their  own  burdens,  as  well  as 
release  them  from  the  direct  oppression  which  many  of  them 
suffered  from  the  religious  establishments.  Even  more  po- 
tential was  the  disgust  everywhere  felt  for  the  flagrant  immo- 
rality of  the  priesthood.  The  dread  experienced  by  every 
husband  and  father  lest  wife  and  daughter  might  at  any 
moment  fall  victims  to  the  lust  of  those  who  had  every 
opportunity  for  the  gratification  of  unholy  passions,  led  them 
to  welcome  the  change,  in  the  hope  that  it  would  result  in 
restoring  decency  and  virtue  to  a  class  which  had  long  seemed 
to  regard  its  sacred  character  as  the  shield  and  instrument  of 
crime. 

The  moral  character  of  the  clergy,  indeed,  had  not  im- 
proved during  the  busy  and  eventful  years  which  marked 
the  first  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century.  How  great  was 
its  degradation  we  can  guess,  when,  in  the  little  town  of  Hof, 
in  the  Vogtland,  three  priests  could  be  found  defiling  the 
sacredness  of  Ash-Wednesday  by  fiercely  fighting  over  a 


Si  domina  nolit,  adveniat  ancilla,  ita  I  et  in  vicem  Vasti,  Ester  surroga,  As- 
tamen  ut  antea  iterum  et  tertio  uxo-  sueri  regis  exemplo."  (Ibid.  p.  123.) 
rem  admoneat  maritus,  et  coram  aliis  |  One  conclusion,  at  least,  can  safely 
ejus  etiam  pertinaciam  detegat,  ut  j  be  drawn  from  this,  that  the  morality 
publice  et  ante  conspectum  ecclesiae,  |  of  the  age  had  impressed  Luther  with 
duritiaejusetagnoscaturet  reprehen- j  the  belief  that  the  self-restraint  of 
datur.     Si  turn  renuat,  repudia  earn,    chastity  was  impossible. 


420 


THE    REFORMATION    IN    GERMANY. 


courtesan  in  a  house  of  ill-fame;1  or  when  Leo  X.,  in  a  feeble 
effort  at  reform,  was  obliged  to  argue  that  systematic  licen- 
tiousness was  not  rendered  excusable  because  its  prevalence 
amounted  to  a  custom,  or  because  it  was  openly  tolerated  by 
those  whose  duty  was  to  repress  it.3  In  fact,  a  clause  in 
the  Concordat  with  Francis  I.  in  1516,  renewing  and  en- 
hancing the  former  punishments  for  public  concubinage, 
would  almost  justify  the  assertion  that  the  principal  result  of 
the  rule  of  celibacy  was  to  afford  to  the  officials  a  regular 
revenue  derived  from  the  sale  of  licenses  to  sin3 — the  old 
complaint,  which  rises  before  us  in  every  age  from  the  time 
of  Damiani  and  Hildebrand. 

That  no  concealment  was  thought  necessary,  and  that  sen- 
sual indulgence  was  not  deemed  derogatory  in  any  way  to  the 
character  of  a  Christian  prelate,  may  be  reasonably  deduced 
from  the  panegyric  of  Gerard  of  Nimeguen  on  Philip  of  Bur- 
gundy, granduncle  of  Charles  V.,  a  learned  and  accomplished 
man,  who  filled  the  important  see  of  Utrecht  from  1517  to 
1524.  Gerard  alludes  to  the  amorous  propensities  and  pro- 
miscuous intrigues  of  his  patron  without  reserve,  and  as  his 
book  was  dedicated  to  the  Archduchess  Margaret,  sister  of 
Charles  Y.,  it  is  evident  that  he  did  not  feel  his  remarks  to  be 
defamatory.    The  good  prelate,  too,  no  doubt  represented  the 


1  Wideman.  Chron.  Curiae, aim.  1505. 

2  Neque  superiorum  tolerantia,  seu 
prava  consuetudo,  quae  potius  cor- 
ruptela  dicenda  est,  a  multitudine 
peccantium,  aliave  quaelibet  excusatio 
eis  aliquo  modo  suffragetur. — Concil. 
Lateran.  V.  aim.  1514,  Sess.  ix. 

That  Leo's  protest  was  not  uncalled 
for  is  shown  by  a  remark  in  a  series  of 
canons  issued  by  the  Bishop  of  Ratis- 
bon  in  1512.  After  repeating  the  canon 
of  Bale,  he  proceeds — "quidam  tainen 
clerici,  .  .  .  concubinas  publice  tenere 
adeo  inverecunde  praesumunt,  quod 
quidem  caecitate  mentis  neque  scan- 
dalum  neque  peccatum  esse  putant 
.  .  .  sed  eorum  pravo  exemplo  multos 
quotidie  inficiunt  et  corrumpunt." — 
Statut.  Synod.  Joan.  Episc.  Ratispon. 
ami.  1512  (Hartzheini,  VI.  86). 


What  was  the  condition  of  clerical 
morality  in  Italy  may  be  gathered 
from  the  stories  of  Bishop  Bandello, 
who,  as  a  Dominican  and  a  prelate, 
may  fairly  be  deemed  to  represent  the 
tone  of  the  thinking  and  educated 
classes  of  society.  The  cynical  levity 
with  which  he  narrates  scandalous 
tales  about  monks  and  priests  (as, 
for  instance,  Novelle  P.  in.  Nov.  lvi.) 
shows  that  in  the  public  mind  sacer- 
dotal immorality  was  regarded  almost 
as  a  matter  of  course. 

3  Quia  vero  in  quibusdam  regioni- 
bus  nonnulli  jurisdictionem  ecclesias- 
ticam  habentes,  pecuniarios  quaestus 
a  concubinariis  percipere  non  erubes- 
cunt,  patientes  eos  in  tali  fceditate  sor- 
descere. — Concil.  Lateran.  V.  ann. 
1516,  Sess.  xi. 


DEMORALIZATION   OF    THE    PRIESTHOOD 


421 


convictions  of  a  large  portion  of  his  class,  when  he  was  wont 
to  smile  at  those  who  urged  the  propriety  of  celibacy,  and  to 
declare  his  belief  in  the  impossibility  of  chastity  among  men 
who,  like  the  clergy,  were  pampered  with  high  living  and 
tempted  by  indolence.  Those  who  professed  to  keep  their 
vows  inviolate  he  denounced  as  hypocrites  of  the  worst  de- 
scription, and  he  deemed  them  far  worse  than  their  brethren 
who  sought  to  avoid  unnecessary  scandal  by  decently  keeping 
their  concubines  at  home.1 

The  powerful  influence  of  this  on  the  progress  of  the 
Eeformation  was  admitted  by  the  legate  Campeggi,  who  was 
sent  to  Germany  to  check  the  spread  of  heresy.  In  his  re- 
formatory edict,  issued  at  Eatisbon  in  1524,  he  declares 
that  the  efforts  of  the  Lutherans  had  no  little  justification  in 
the  detestable  morals  and  lives  of  the  clergy,  and  this  is  con- 
firmed by  his  unsparing  denunciation  of  their  licentiousness, 
drunkenness,  quarrels,  and  tavern-haunting ;  their  traffic  in 
absolution  for  enormous  offences ;  their  unclerical  habits  and 
hideous  blasphemy ;  their  indulgence  in  incantations  and 
dabbling  in  witchcraft.2     Yery  significant  is  his  declaration 


1  Ipse  enirn  in  Venerem  propensior, 
inque  adulescentularum  amoribus  ar- 
dentior  erat.  Si  quis  .  .  .  coelibatum 
praedicasset,irridebat  vehementer,  im- 
possible dicens,  homines  integro  cor- 
pore,  aetate,  in  tanto  ocio,  in  tanta 
rerum  omnium  copia,  qui  crebro  aut 
vino  calerent  aut  turgerent  cerevisia, 
posse  caste  vivere.  Quare  horum  cas- 
titatem  impurissimam  humanae  na- 
turae contumeliam  interpretabatur. 
Sacrificulos  qui  domi  concubinas  ale- 
rent,  simulatae  castitatis  professoribus 
multo   puriores   judicabat. —  Gerard. 

'Noviomag.  Philip.  Burgund.  (Mathaei 
Analect/l.  230). 

2  Reformat.  Cleri  German.  (Hartz- 
heim,  VI.  198). — "  Hanc  perditissi- 
mam  haeresin  .  .  .  non  parvam  ha- 
buisse  occasionem.  partim  a  perditis 
moribus  et  vita  clericorum  etc." 

There  was  no  scruple  in  confessing 
this  fact  by  those  who  spoke  autho- 
ritatively for  the  Catholic  church,  and 
it  long  continued  to  be  alleged  as  the 


cause  of  the  stubbornness  of  the  here- 
tics. Thus  the  Bishop  of  Constance, 
in  the  canons  of  his  Synod  of  1567 — 
"  Estote  etiam  memores,  damnatam 
et  detestandam  cleri  vitam  huic  malo 
in  quo,  proh  dolor!  versamur,  majori 
ex  parte  ansam  prsebuisse.  .  .  .  Omnes 
sapientes  peritique  viri  unanimi  sen- 
tentia  hoc  asserunt,  hocque  efflagitant 
penitus,ut  priusclerus  ecclesiarumque 
ministri  ac  doctores  a  vitae  sordibus 
repurgentur,  quam  ulla  cum  adver- 
sariis  nostris  de  doctrina  concordia 
expectari  queat."  And  then,  after 
describing  in  the  strongest  terms  the 
vices  of  the  clergy  and  their  unwilling- 
ness to  reform,  he  adds  "Quae  sane 
morum  turpitudo,  vehementer  et  tan- 
topere  imperiti  populi  animos  offendit 
ut  subinde  magis  magisque  a  catholica 
nostra  religione  alienior  efficiatur,atque 
sacerdotium  una  cum  sacerdotibus  doc- 
trinam  juxta  atque  doctores,  execretur, 
dirisque  devoveat :  ita  ut  protinus  ad 
quamvis  sectam  deficere  potius  para- 
tus  sit  quam  quod  ad  ecclesiam  redire 


422 


THE    REFORMATION   IN    GERMANY. 


that  the  canonical  punishments  shall  be  inflicted  on  concu- 
binary  priests,  in  spite  of  all  custom  to  the  contrary  or  all 
connivance  with  the  prelates.1 

How  keenly  these  evils  were  felt  by  the  people,  and  how 
instinctively  they  were  referred  to  the  rule  of  celibacy  as  to 
their  proper  origin,  is  shown  by  an  incidental  allusion  in  the 
formula  of  complaint  laid  before  the  pope  by  the  imperial 
Diet  held  at  Nurnberg  early  in  1522,  before  the  heresy  of 
priestly  marriage  had  spread  beyond  the  vicinity  of  Witten- 
berg or  had  received  the  sanction  of  Luther.  The  Diet,  in 
recounting  the  evils  arising  from  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion which  allowed  clerical  offenders  to  enjoy  virtual  immu- 
nity, adduced,  among  other  grievances,  the  license  afforded  to 
those  who,  debarred  by  the  canons  from  marriage,  abandoned 
themselves  night  and  day  to  attempts  upon  the  virtue  of  the 
wives  and  daughters  of  the  laity,  sometimes  gaining  their 
ends  by  flattery  and  presents,  and  sometimes  taking  advantage 
of  the  opportunities  offered  by  the  confessional.  It  was  not 
uncommon,  indeed,  for  women  to  be  openly  carried  off  by 
their  priests,  while  their  husbands  and  fathers  were  threatened 
with  vengeance  if  they  should  attempt  to  recover  them.  As 
regards  the  sale  to  ecclesiastics  of  licenses  to  indulge  in 
habitual  lust,  the  Diet  declared  it  to  be  a  regular  and  settled 
matter,  reduced  to  the  form  of  an  annual  tax,  which  in  most 


velit." — Synod.  Constant,  aim.  1567 
(Hartzheim,  VII.  455). 

Pius  V.  himself  did  not  hesitate  to 
adopt  the  same  view.  In  an  epistle 
addressed  to  the  abbots  and  priors  of 
the  diocese  of  Freysingen,  in  1567,  he 
says — "  Cum  nobiscum  ipsi  cogitamus 
quae  res  materiam  prsebuerit  tot  tan- 
tisque  pestiferis  hseresibus  .  .  .  tanti 
mali  causam  praecipue  fuisse  judica- 
mus  corruptos  praelatorum  mores,  qui 
.  .  .  eandemque  vivendi  licentiam  iis, 
quibus  praeerant  permittentes  et  ex- 
emplo  eos  suo  corrumpentes,  maxi- 
mum apud  laieos  odium  contemptio- 
nem  et  invidiam  non  immerito  con- 
traxerunt."    (Hartzheim,  VII.  586.) 

1  Reformat.  Cleri  German,  cap.  xv. 
— So  when,  in  1521,  Conrad,  Bishop  of 
Wurzburg,  issued  a  mandate  for  the 
reformation  of  his  clergy,  he  described 


them  as  for  the  most  part  abandoned 
to  gluttony,  drunkenness,  gambling, 
quarrelling,  and  lust. — Mandat.  pro 
Reformat.  Cleri.  (Gropp,  Script.  Rer. 
Wirceburg.  I.  269.)  — In  1505  the 
Bishop  of  Bamberg,  in  complaining  of 
his  clergy,  shows  us  how  little  respect 
was  habitually  paid  to  the  incessant 
repetition  of  the  canons. — "  Condo- 
lenter  referimus  vitam  et  honestatem 
clerical  em  adeo  apud  quamplures  nos- 
trarum  civitatis  et  dioceseos  clericos 
esse  obumbratam  ut  vix  inter  clericos 
et  laycos  discrimen  habeatur:  et  ipsa 
statuta  nostra  synodalia  in  ipsorum 
clericorum  cordibus  obliterata  et  a 
pluribus  non  visa  aut  perlecta  vilipen- 
dantur:  nullam  propter  nostram,  quam 
hactenus  pii  pastoris  more  tolleravi- 
mus  patientiam,  capientes  emenda- 
tionem."— (Hartzheim,  VI.  Q6.) 


OPINIONS   OF    ERASMUS. 


423 


dioceses  was  exacted  of  all  the  clergy  without  exception,  so 
that  when  those  who  perchance  lived  chastely  demurred  at 
the  payment,  they  were  told  that  the  bishop  must  have  the 
money,  and  that  after  it  was  handed  over  they  might  take 
their  choice  whether  to  keep  concubines  or  not.1 


When  the  laity  thus  rudely  complained  of  the  corruption 
of  their  pastors,  it  is  interesting  to  see  what  was  the  view  of 
the  subject  taken  by  those  ecclesiastics  whose  purity  of  life 
removed  them  from  all  temptation  to  indulgence,  and  who 
yet  were  not  personally  interested  in  upholding  the  gigantic 
but  decaying  structure  of  sacerdotalism.  Of  these  men 
Erasmus  may  be  taken  as  the  representative.  His  opinion 
on  all  the  questions  of  the  day  was  too  eagerly  desired  for 
him  to  escape  the  necessity  of  pronouncing  his  verdict  on  the 
innovation  portended  by  the  one  or  two  marriages  which 
took  place  near  Wittenberg  in  1521,  and  accordingly,  in  1522, 
from  his  retreat  at  Bale  he  issued  a  short  dissertation  on  the 
subject,  which,  although  addressed  merely  to  Bishop  Christo- 
pher of  that  city,  was  evidently  intended  for  a  European 


1  Saepenumero  enim  compertum  est 
ut  quum  ita  consecratis,  praesertim  sa- 
cerdotibus,  per  jura  canonica  legitimae 
uxores  sint  interdict*  ;  quod  dehinc 
pudicitiam  matronarurn,  virginum, 
laicorum  scilicet  uxorum,  filiarum,  so- 
roruinque  attentant,  ac  noctu  interdiu- 
que  sollicitant.  Efficiunt  quoque  per 
assiduum  ac  indefessuin  laborem,  par- 
tim  muiieribus,  donis  ac  blanditiis,  ut 
cornplures  honestae  alioqui  virgines  et 
matronae,  partim  etiam  in  secretis, 
quas  vocant  confessionibus  (id  quod 
eventu  compertum  est)  diuturna  opera 
labefactentur,  ad  peccata,  offendicu- 
laque  comrnoveantur.  Nee  raro  etiam 
evenit  ut  ii,  uxores  et  filias,  maritis 
patribusque  detineant  et  remorentur  ; 
minantes  interim  gladio,  aqua,  ignive, 
ulturos  repetitas  uxores. — Gravamin. 
Ordin.  Imperii  cap.  xxi.  (Goldast.  I. 
464). 

Officiales  .  .  .  insuper  etiam  cleri- 
cos  religiososque  et  seculares,  accepto 
ab  eisdem  annuo  censu,  publice  cum 
suis  concubinis,  pellicibus,  et  aliis  id 
genus  meretricibus,  illegitime  cohabi- 


|  tare,  liberosque  procreare  sinunt. — 
—  Ibid.  cap.  lvii. 

Item  in  locis  plerisque  episcopi  et 
eorum  officiales,  non  solum  sacerdo- 
tum  tolerant  concubinatum,  dummodo 
certa  persolvatur  pecunia ;  sed  et  sacer- 
dotes  continentes,  et  qui  absque  concu- 
binis degunt,  concubiuatus  censum 
persolvere  cogunt ;  asserentes  episco- 

I  pum  pecuniae  indigum  esse,  qua  soluta, 

'  licere  sacerdotibus  ut  vel  coelibes  per- 
maneant,  vel  concubinas  alant.  Quam 
res  hsec  sit  nepbanda  nemo  non  in- 
telligit. — Ibid.  cap.  lxx. 

When  such  complaints  were  made 
by  the  highest  authority  in  the  em- 
pire, it  is  not  difficult  to  understand 
the  reasons  which  led  the  senate  of 
Niirnberg — which  city  had  not  yet 
embraced  the  Reformation — to  deprive, 
in  1524,  the  Dominicans  and  Francis- 
cans of  the  superintendence  and  visi- 
tation of  the  nuns  of  St.  Catherine  and 
St.  Clare ;  nor  do  we  need  Spalatin's 
malicious  suggestion — "cura  et  visi- 
tatione,  pene   dixeram   corruptione." 

t  — Spalatin.  Annal.  ann.  1524. 


424 


THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY. 


audience.  In  this  essay,  after  sketching  the  rise  of  celibacy 
and  attributing  it  to  the  purity  and  fervor  of  the  early 
Christians,  he  proceeds  to  depict  the  altered  condition  of  the 
church.  Among  the  innumerable  multitude  of  priests  who 
crowd  the  monasteries,  the  chapters,  and  the  parishes,  he  de- 
clares that  there  are  few  indeed  whose  lives  are  pure,  even 
as  respects  open  and  avowed  concubinage,  without  pene- 
trating into  the  mysteries  of  secret  intrigue.  As,  therefore, 
there  is  no  Scriptural  injunction  of  celibacy,  he  concludes 
that,  however  desirable  it  might  be  to  have  ministers  free 
from  the  cares  of  marriage  and  devoting  themselves  solely  to 
the  service  of  God,  yet  since  it  seems  impossible  to  conquer 
the  rebellious  flesh,  it  would  be  better  to  allow  those  who 
cannot  control  themselves  to  have  wives  with  whom  they 
could  live  in  virtuous  peace,  bringing  up  their  children  in 
the  fear  of  God,  and  earning  the  respect  of  their  flocks. 
No  more  startling  evidence,  indeed,  of  the  demoralization  of 
the  period  could  be  given  than  the  cautious  fear  which 
Erasmus  expresses  lest  such  a  change  should  be  opposed  by 
the  episcopal  officials,  who  would  object  to  the  diminution  of 
their  unhallowed  gains  levied  on  the  concubines  of  the 
clergy.1 


1  Quot  examina  sacerdotum  alunt 
monasteria,  quot  collegia  ?  ac  prseter 
hos  etiam  innumerabilis  est  ubique 
sacerdotum  multitudo.  Et  inter  hos 
quanta  raritas  eorum  qui  caste  vivunt  ? 
De  bis  loquor  qui  domi  pal  am  alunt 
concubinas  uxorum  loco.  Nee  enim 
attingo  nunc  secretiorum  libidinum 
mysteria.  Et  haec  quum  sciamus, 
tamen  in  admittendo  ad  sacrum  ordi- 
nem  facillimi  sumus,  in  relaxanda 
coelibatus  constitutione  difficillimi, 
quum  contra  Paulus  docuerit,  nemini 
facile  manum  imponendam  .  .  .  De 
coelibatu  neque  Christus  neque  Apos- 
toli  legem  aliquam  in  sacris  litteris 
praefixerunt  .  .  .  Quod  si  his  qui  se 
non  continent,  concederetur  matri- 
monium,  et  ipsi  viverent  quietius, 
et  populo  cum  autoritate  prsedicarent 
verbum  Dei,  et  liberos  suos  liberaliter 
educandos  curarent,  nee  alteri  alteris 
vicissim  essent  probro  .  .  .  Sed  ut  ec- 
clesiae  proceres  admoneam,  dispiciant 


an  expediat  veteram  constitutionem 
ad  praesentem  utilitatem  acconimo- 
dari  .  .  .  Nihil  magis  optandum 
quam  ut  sacerdos  immunis  a  conjugio, 
liber  ac  totus  serviat  Domino  suo. 
Sed  si  frustra  tentatis  remediis  omni- 
bus vinci  non  potest  carnis  rebellio, 
superest  ut  cum  una  caste  vivat,  ad 
remedium  habens  uxorem,  non  ad 
voluptatem.  ...  Si  episcopi  tentent 
mutare,  fortasse  reclament  officiales, 
qui  plus  sentiunt  rediturum  ex  concu- 
binis  sacerdotum,  quam  censuri  sint 
ex  uxoribus.  —  Erasmi  Lib.  xxxi. 
Epist.  43. 

Notwithstanding  the  sarcasm,  popu- 
larly attributed  to  Erasmus,  on  the 
occasion  of  Luther's  union  with  Cathe- 
rine von  Bora — that  the  Reformation 
had  turned  out  to  be  a  comedy,  seeing 
that  it  resulted  in  a  marriage  —  he 
continued  to  raise  his  voice  in  favor 
of  abolishing  the  rule  of  celibacy. 
Thus  he  writes,  in  October,  1525,  "  Ve- 


INFLUENCES   ADVERSE   TO   CELIBACY.        425 

When  such  was  the  condition  of  ecclesiastical  morality, 
and  such  were  the  opinions  of  all  except  those  directly 
interested  in  upholding  the  old  order  of  things,  it  is  no 
wonder  if  the  people  were  disposed  to  look  with  favor  on 
the  marriage  of  their  pastors,  and  if  the  rejection  of  celibacy 
gave  a  fresh  impetus  to  the  cause  of  Lutheranism.  In  the 
early  days  of  all  sects,  it  is  only  those  of  ardent  faith  and 
pure  zeal  who  are  likely  to  embrace  a  new  belief,  with  all 
the  attendant  risks  of  persecution  and  contumely.  The  laxity 
of  life  allowed  to  the  Catholic  clergy  would  attract  to  its 
ranks  and  retain  there  all  those  whose  aim  was  sensual  in- 
dulgence. Thus,  necessarily,  the  reformers  who  married  would 
present  for  contrast  regular  and  chaste  lives  and  well-ordered 
households,  purified  by  the  dread  of  the  ever-impending 
troubles  to  which  the  accident  of  a  day  might  at  any  time 
expose  them.  The  comparison  thus  was  in  every  way  favor- 
able to  the  new  ideas,  and  they  flourished  accordingly. 

Nor,  perhaps,  were  the  worldly  inducements  to  which  I 
have  before  alluded  less  powerful  in  their  own  way  in  ad- 
vancing the  cause.  Shortly  before  Luther's  marriage,  what- 
ever influence  was  derivable  from  an  aristocratic  example 
was  obtained  when  the  Baron  of  Heydeck,  a  knight  of  the 
Teutonic  order,  renounced  his  vows  and  publicly  espoused  a 
nun  of  Ligny.1  This  may  possibly  have  encouraged  his 
superior,  Albert  of  Brandenburg,  grand-master  of  the  order, 
to  execute  his  remarkably  successful  coup  d'etat  in  changing 
his  religion  and  seizing  the  estates  of  the  order,  thus  practi- 
cally founding  the  state  which  chance  and  talent  have  exalted 
into  the  powerful  and  protestant  kingdom  of  Prussia.  The 
liberty  of  marriage  which  he  thus  assumed  was  soon  turned 
to  account  in  his  advantageous  alliance  with  Frederic,  King 
of  Denmark,    whose   daughter   Dorothea   he   espoused,   the 


liementer    laudo   coelibatum,   sed   ut  j  Pontificum,  ad  sedificationem  ecclesise 

nunc  habet  sacerdotum  ac  monacbo-  |  non  ad  destructionem  ...  In  primis 

rum  vita,  prsesertim  apud  Germanos,  !  optandum  esset  sacerdotes  et  niona- 

prsestaret  indulgeri  remedium  matri-  j  chos  castitatem  ac  coelestem  vitam  am- 

monii."    (Lib.  xvm.  Epist.  9.)     And  i  plecti.    Nunc  rebus  adeocontaminatis, 

again,  in  1526,  "  Ego  nee  sacerdotibus    fortasse  levius  malum  erat  eligendum" 

permitto    conjugium,   nee    monachis  j  (Lib.  xvm.  Epist.  4). 

relaxo  vota,  ni  id  fiat  ex  auctoritate !      ,  0     ,   ..       .        ,  1COJ. 

'  I      ■  Spalatin.  Annal.  ann.  1525. 


426  THE    REFORMATION    IN    GERMANY. 

Bishop  of  Szamland  officiating  as  his  proxy,  and  the  actual 
marriage  being  celebrated  June  14,  1526.1 

Luther  may  reasonably  be  held  excusable  for  counselling 
and  aiding  a  transaction  which  lent  such  incalculable  strength 
to  the  struggling  cause  of  the  Reformation,  and  it  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at  if  he  endeavored  to  follow  it  up  with  another  of 
a  similar  character.  The  nephew  of  the  Duke  of  Prussia,  also 
named  Albert  of  Brandenburg,  occupied  the  highest  place  in 
the  Teutonic  hierarchy,  as  Archbishop  both  of  Mainz  and 
Magdeburg,  in  the  latter  of  which  powerful  sees  the  Lutheran 
heresies  had  taken  deep  root.  Luther  sought  to  induce  the 
archbishop  to  follow  his  uncle's  example ;  to  take  possession 
in  his  own  right  of  the  Magdeburg  territories,  and  to  transmit 
them  to  the  posterity  with  which  heaven  could  not  fail  to 
bless  his  prospective  marriage — a  scheme  which  met  the 
warm  approbation  of  the  leading  nobles  of  the  diocese. 
Albert  thought  seriously  of  the  project,  especially  as  the 
Peasants'  War  then  raging  was  directed  particularly  against 
the  lands  of  the  church,  but  he  finally  abandoned  it,  and  his 
flock  had  to  work  out  their  reformation  without  his  assistance.2 

Perhaps  some  plans  of  territorial  aggrandizement  may  have 
stimulated  the  zeal  of  the  Count  of  Embden,  who  boasted  that 
he  had  assisted  and  encouraged  the  marriage  of  no  less  than 
rive  hundred  monks  and  nuns  ;3  yet  the  process  of  secularizing 
the  monastic  foundations  was  in  many  places  by  no  means 
sudden  or  violent.  Thus,  when  the  Abbot  of  Ilgenthal  in 
Saxony  died  in  1526,  the  Elector  John  simply  forbade  the 
election  of  a  successor,  and  placed  the  abbey  in  charge  of  a 
prefect,  while  the  remaining  monks  were  liberally  supplied 
until  they  one  after  another  died  out.4 

Through  all  this  period  the  hope  had  never  been  abandoned 
of  such  an  arrangement  as  would  prevent  an  irrevocable  sepa- 
ration in  the  church.     Moderate  and  temperate  men  on  both 


1  Spalatin.  Annal.  aim.  1526.  ]  was  only  thirty-five  or  six  years  of 


,  age,  the  proposition  was  not  an  un- 
•  Henke  Append,  ad  Cahxt   p.  595.  |  refea;onab£  0£] 


— Serrarii  Rerum  Mogimt.  Lih.  v. 
(Script.  Rer.  Mogunt.  I.  831,  839). 
As  Albert,  though  Primate  of  Germany, 


3  Spalatin.  Annal.  ann.  1526. 

4  Thammii  Chron.  Coldicens. 


EFFORTS   AT    ACCOMMODATION.  427 

sides  were  ready  to  make  such  concessions  of  form  as  would 
enable  Christendom  to  remain  united,  the  great  vital  truths 
on  which  all  were  agreed  so  far  outweighing  the  points  of 
divergence.  Whether  these  hopes  were  well  or  ill-founded 
was  to  be  determined  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  to  which,  in 
June,  153(\  both  parties  were  summoned  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  their  differences  to  the  emperor.  Charles  came 
to  Germany  in  the  full  flush  of  his  recent  extraordinary 
triumphs,  the  most  powerful  prince  since  the  days  of  Charle- 
magne. Europe  was  at  length  at  peace,  even  the  Turk  only 
looming  in  the  East  as  a  probable,  not  as  an  existing  enemy. 
But  Charles,  newly  crowned  at  Bologna,  came  as  the  steadfast 
ally  of  the  pope,  and  Clement  VII.  had  not  the  slightest  in- 
tention of  renouncing  the  traditional  and  imprescriptible 
rights  of  the  Holy  See.  The  Catholic  princes  of  Germany, 
too,  had  their  grounds  of  private  quarrel  with  their  Protestant 
peers,  and,  holding  an  unquestioned  majority,  were  not  dis- 
posed to  abandon  their  position.  The  Protestant  princes,  on 
the  other  hand,  were  firm  in  their  new-found  faith,  and  how- 
ever disposed  to  avert  the  threatened  storm  by  the  sacrifice 
of  non-essentials,  their  convictions  were  too  strong  for  them 
to  retrace  the  steps  which  they  had  taken  during  so  many 
long  and  weary  years.  It  is  evident  that,  with  such  materials 
on  either  side,  no  reunion  was  probable ;  and  even  had  an 
accommodation  on  points  of  doctrine  been  possible,  there  was 
one  subject  which  scarcely  admitted  of  satisfactory  compromise. 
In  the  states  of  the  reform,  the  downfall  of  monachism  had 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  temporal  powers  large  bodies  of 
sequestrated  abbey  lands.  To  the  Catholic  it  was  sacrilege 
to  leave  these  in  the  hands  of  the  spoiler ;  the  Protestant  would 
not  willingly  give  up  the  fortune  thus  acquired. 

The  contest  was  opened  by  the  Protestants  submitting  a 
statement  of  their  belief,  divided  into  two  parts,  the  one  de- 
voted to  points  of  faith,  the  other  to  matters  of  practice. 
Prepared  principally  by  Melancthon,  it  presents  their  tenets 
in  the  mildest  and  least  objectionable  form,  and  becoming  the 
recognized  standard  of  their  creed,  it  has  attained  a  world- 
wide renown  under  the  name  of  the  Confession  of  Augsburg. 
The  questions  of  celibacy  and  monastic  vows  were  ably  and 


428  THE    REFORMATION    IN    GERMANY. 

temperately  argued ;  their  post-scriptural  origin  was  shown, 
and  the  reasons  which  induced  the  reformers  to  reject  them 
were  placed  in  a  light  as  little  offensive  as  possible.1  At  first, 
a  counter-statement  was  anticipated  from  the  Catholics,  and 
negotiations  were  expected  to  be  carried  on  by  a  comparison 
of  the  two,  but  they  took  higher  ground,  and  contented  them- 
selves with  drawing  up  a  refutation  of  the  Confession.  The 
emperor  was  firm.  His  religious  belief  was  too  unwavering, 
and  his  political  alliance  with  Eome  too  close  for  him  to  feel 
any  emotion  save  that  of  surprise  and  indignation  at  the 
Protestant  princes  in  their  resistance  to  the  combined  au- 
thority of  himself,  of  the  Diet,  and  of  the  church.  He  was 
inclined  to  summary  measures,  but  the  Catholic  princes  were 
hardly  prepared  for  the  consequences  of  an  immediate  rupture, 
and,  after  a  threatening  interval,  another  effort  was  made  to 
effect  a  reconciliation.  Conferences  between  the  leading  theo- 
logians on  both  sides  took  place,  and  the  Lutherans,  warned 
of  their  danger,  were  more  disposed  than  ever  to  make  con- 
cessions and  to  accept  such  terms  as  the  stronger  party  were 
willing  to  offer  them.  At  length,  on  the  8th  of  September,  the 
draft  of  a  proposed  plan  of  accord  was  laid  before  the  Diet. 
In  this  the  points  in  dispute  were  referred  to  that  future  cecu- 
menic  council  which  had  so  long  been  demanded  as  the 
panacea  for  all  ecclesiastical  ills,  and  which,  after  more  than 
thirty  years  of  continued  expectation,  was  destined  to  fail  so 
miserably  in  reconciling  difficulties.  Such  monasteries  as 
had  not  been  destroyed  were  to  be  maintained  in  the  exercise 
of  the  customary  rites  and  observances  of  religion.  Abbots 
and  communities  who  had  been  ejected  were  to  be  allowed  to 
return ;  and  all  religious  houses  which  had  been  emptied  of 
their  occupants  were  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  officers 
appointed  by  the  emperor,  who  were  to  administer  to  their 
possessions  until  the  future  council  should  decide  npon  all 
the  points  relating  to  monachism;  the  Protestants  thus  re- 
lieving themselves  of  the  accusation  that  they  were  actuated 
by  motives  of  worldly  gain.  Similar  proposals  were  made 
with  regard  to  communion  in  the  two  elements  and  clerical 


1  Confess.  Augustanae  P.  n.  Art.  ii.  vi. 


THE   LEAGUE   OF   SC H M ALCALDE N. 


429 


These  were  left  as  open  questions  for  the  council 
to  settle,  a  phrase  of  doubtful  import  subjecting  them  mean- 
while to  the  governments  of  the  several  states.1  The  con- 
cessions in  this  project,  however,  though  they  might  suit  the 
views  of  temperate  doctors  and  princes  in  Germany,  were  not 
likely  to  find  favor  with  immovable  Eome,  and  the  legate 
Campeggi  found  little  difficulty  in  causing  its  rejection  by  the 
Diet.  The  restoration  of  all  abbots  and  monks  was  ordered ; 
restitution  of  church  lands  was  commanded,  or  their  delivery 
to  the  emperor  to  be  held  until  the  assembling  of  the  future 
council;  and  when  the  Diet  adjourned,  Charles  issued  a  decree 
enjoining  on  all  married  priests  to  abstain  from  their  wives, 
to  eject  them,  and  to  seek  absolution  from  their  ordinaries.2 

The  threatening  aspect  of  affairs  warned  the  Protestant 
princes  that  no  time  was  to  be  lost  in  making  provision  for 
mutual  defence,  and  ere  the  year  was  out  the  famous  League 
of  Schmalcalden  enabled  them  to  present  a  united  front  to 
the  powers  which  they  had  virtually  defied.  Into  the  political 
history  of  that  eventful  time  it  is  not  my  province  to  enter. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  they  were  able  to  maintain  their  position, 
and  in  their  own  states  to  oppose  the  reactionary  movement 
which  at  times  seemed  to  be  on  the  point  of  destroying  all 
that  had  been  accomplished. 

In  this  their  task  was  complicated  by  the  extravagances  of 
those  whose  enthusiasm,  unbalanced  by  reason,  carried  them 
beyond  restraint.  If  Luther  had  found  it  no  easy  task  to 
break  the  chains  which  for  so  many  ages  had  kept  in  check 
the  spirit  of  free  inquiry,  he  discovered  that  it  was  impossible 
to  control  that  spirit  once  let  loose ;  and  the  wild  excesses  of 
Anabaptism  were  at  once  the  exaggeration  and  the  oppro- 
brium of  Lutheranism.  Originally  earnest  and  self-denying, 
the  primitive  Anabaptists  had  captivated  the  fiery  soul  of 
Carlostadt,  while  Luther  was  in  his  Patmos  of  Wartburg,  but 
the  pure  asceticism  of  Storck  and  Muncer  gradually  grew  irk- 
some to  the  followers  who.  flocked  to  their  standard,  and,  if 


1  Deliberat.  de  Concordia,  etc.  c.  iii. 
v.  (Goldast.  I.  509). 

2  Sentent.    Caroli  V.    §  5   (Ibid.  I. 


510).— Rescript.  Caroli  V.  §  5  (Ibid. 
III.  512).  Henke,  Append,  ad  Calixt. 
pp.  595-6. 


430  THE   REFORMATION   IN   GERMANY. 

we  may  believe  contemporary  writers,  the  unchaining  of 
human  passions  in  that  lawless  horde  resulted  in  the  igneum 
baptisma,  or  fiery  baptism,  by  which  at  Munster  John  Mathison 
encouraged  the  most  hideous  licentiousness  in  the  elect,  to  be 
followed  up  by  his  successor  John  of  Leyden,  who,  in  imita- 
tion of  the  patriarchs,  promulgated  the  law  of  polygamy.1 

Luther,  however,  was  quite  as  resolute  in  setting  limits  to 
his  movement  as  Kome  had  been  in  forbidding  all  progress, 
and  the  Anabaptists  were  to  him  enemies  as  detestable  as 
Catholics.  The  Protestant  princes,  moreover,  had  too  much 
worldly  wisdom  to  imperil  their  dangerous  career  by  any 
alliance  with  fanatics  whose  extravagances  provoked  abhor- 
rence so  general.  The  cause  of  the  Reformation,  therefore, 
although  it  suffered  no  little  from  so  portentous  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  dangers  resulting  from  the  destruction  of  the 
ancient  barriers,  escaped  all  contamination  in  itself,  and  its 
leaders  pursued  their  course  undeviatingly. 

Meanwhile  the  League  of  Schmalcalden  accomplished  its 
purpose.  Henry  VIII.  and  Francis  L  were  eager  to  seize  the 
opportunity  of  encouraging  dissension  in  the  empire.  The 
Turk  became  more  menacing  than  ever.  Charles,  always 
ready  to  yield  for  a  time  when  opposition  was  impolitic, 
gracefully  abandoned  the  position  assumed  at  Augsburg ;  and 
the  negotiations  of  Schweinfurth  and  Nurnberg  resulted  in 
the  decree  of  the  Diet  of  Ratisbon  in  1532,  by  which,  until 
the  assembling  of  the  future  council,  all  religious  disturbances 
were  prohibited,  and  the  imperial  chamber  was  commanded 
to  undertake  no  prosecutions  on  account  of  heresy.  Tolera- 
tion was  thus  practically  established  for  the  moment,  but  the 
abbots  and  monks  who  had  been  ejected,  and  who  had  been 
anticipating  their  restoration,  became  naturally  restive. 
Charles  cunningly  sent  from  Italy  full  powers  to  the  chamber 
to  decide  as  to  what  causes  arose  from  religious  disputes,  and 
what  were  simply  civil  or  criminal.  Thus  intrusted  with  the 
interpretation  of  the  Ratisbon  decree,  the  chamber  assumed 
that  claims  on  church  lands  were  not  included  in  the  forbidden 


Kerssenbroch  Bell.  Anabaptist,  cap.  15,  31. 


FRUITLESS    NEGOTIATIONS.  431 

class,  while  old  edicts  prohibiting  the  observances  of  Lutheran- 
ism  brought  all  religious  questions  within  the  scope  of  criminal 
law.  The  promised  toleration  was  thus  practically  denied, 
but,  fortunately  for  the  Protestants,  Ferdinand  was  anxiously 
negotiating  for  their  recognition  of  his  dignity  as  king  of  the 
Eomans,  and  by  the  Transaction  of  Cadam  in  1533  he  pur- 
chased the  coveted  homage  by  accepting  their  construction  of 
the  edict  of  Eatisbon. 

Still  the  Protestants  complained  of  persecution  and  the 
Catholics  of  proselytism.  The  ensuing  fifteen  years  were 
filled  with  a  series  of  bootless  negotiations,  pretended  settle- 
ments, quarrels,  recriminations,  and  mutual  encroachments 
which  year  after  year  occupied  the  successive  Diets,  and  kept 
Germany  constantly  trembling  on  the  verge  of  a  desolating 
civil  war.  It  would  be  useless  to  disturb  the  dust  that  covers 
these  forgotten  transactions,  which  can  teach  us  nothing  save 
that  the  Protestants  still  refused  to  recognize  that  the  schism 
was  past  human  power  to  heal ;  that  Eome,  as  immovable  as 
ever,  would  not  abate  one  jot  of  her  pretensions  to  save  her 
supremacy  over  half  of  Christendom ;  and  that  Charles,  as  a 
wily  politician,  was  always  ready  in  adversity  to  abandon  with 
a  good  grace  that  which  he  had  arrogantly  seized  in  pros- 
perity.1 

In  all  this  the  only  point  which  possesses  special  interest 
for  us  is  another  attempt  at  reconciling  the  irreconcilable 
which  occurred  in  1541.  After  a  conference  between  Me- 
lancthon  and  Dr.  Eck  at  Worms,  Charles  himself  presented 
to  the  Diet  of  Eatisbon  a  statement  of  the  questions  in 
dispute,  with  propositions  for  mutual  concession  and  compro- 
mise. In  the  course  of  this,  he  reviewed  the  practice  of  the 
church  in  various  ages  with  regard  to  sacerdotal  celibacy,  ad- 
mitting that  the  enforcement  of  it  was  not  in  accordance  with 
the  ancient  canons,  and  indicating  a  willingness  to  see  it 
abrogated.2  The  Protestants,  who  were  ready  to  make  many 
sacrifices   for  peace,   hailed   this  intimation   with   triumph, 


1  An  elaborate  series  of  documents 
relating  to  these  transactions  may  be 
found  in  Goldast.  Constit.  Imp.  I.  511, 
III.  172-235. 


2  Lib.  ad  Rationem  Concord,  in- 
eundam  Art.  xxn.  §  13  (Goldast.  II. 
199). 


432  THE    REFORMATION    IN    GERMANY. 

stoutly  insisting  on  the  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  rule,  which 
they  stigmatized  as  unjust  and  pernicious.1  So  nearly  did 
the  parties  at  length  approach  each  other,  that  there  appeared 
every  reason  to  anticipate  a  successful  result  to  the  effort, 
when  Paul  III.  again  interfered  and  pronounced  all  the  pro- 
ceedings null  and  void,  as  the  church  alone  had  power  to 
regulate  its  internal  affairs. 

Charles  had  long  recognized  that  the  perpetual  menace  of 
a  powerful  confederation  such  as  the  Schmalcaldic  League, 
entertaining  constant  relations  with  the  external  enemies  of 
the  empire,  was  incompatible  with  the  peace  of  Germany  and 
with  the  imperial  power  such  as  he  was  resolved  to  wield. 
The  time  at  last  came  for  the  development  of  his  plans.  The 
skill  of  Alva  and  the  treachery  of  Maurice  of  Saxony  were 
crowned  with  success.  The  battle  of  Muhlberg  broke  the 
power  of  the  Protestants  utterly,  and  laid  them  helpless  at 
the  feet  of  their  bitterest  foes.  Yet  the  progress  of  the  new 
ideas  had  already  placed  them  beyond  the  control  of  even  the 
triumphant  Charles,  though  he  had  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and 
the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  in  his  dungeons.  When,  at  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg,  in  1548,  he  proposed  the  curious  arrangement 
known  as  the  Interim,  by  which  he  hoped  to  keep  matters 
quiet  until  the  final  verdict  of  that  oecumenic  council  which 
constantly  vanished  in  the  distance,  he  felt  it  necessary  to  per- 
mit all  married  priests  to  retain  their  wives  until  the  question 
should  be  decided  by  the  future  council.  A  faint  expression 
of  a  preference  for  celibacy,  moreover,  was  significant  both 
in  what  it  said  and  what  it  left  unsaid.2 


1  Ideo  oramus  ut  ex  ecclesia  tolla-  ]  niri  clericos  qui  cuni  coclibes  sint  vere 
tur  lisec  injusta  et  perniciosa  lex  de  i  etiam  contineant,  tarn  en  quum  inulti 
ccelibatu. — Respons.  Protestant.  Art.  qui  ministerii  ecclesiastici  functiones 
x.  §  3  (Ibid.  II.  20(5).  This  was  still  I  tenent,  jam  multis  in  locis  duxerint 
more  strongly  insisted  on  in  a  paper  !  uxores,  quas  a  se  diniittere  nolint  ; 
subsequently  drawn  up  by  Bucer  and  super  ea  regeneralis  concilii  sententia 
presented  in  the  name  of  the  Protest-  !  expectetur,  cum  alioqui  mutatio  in  ea 


ants. — Respons.  Protestant,   c.  11-14 
(Ibid.  p.  213). 

2  Et  quanquam  cum  Apostolo  seu- 
tiendum  eum  qui  coclebs  est  curare 
quae  sunt  Domini  etc.  (I.  Cor.  vii.) 
eoque  magis  optandum  multos  inve- 


re,  ut  nunc  sunt  tempora,  sine  gravi 
rerum  perturbatione  nunc  fieri  non 
possit. — Interim,  cap.  xxvi.  §  17. 

Charles  must  have  entertained  the 
expectation  that  a  change  would  be 
authorized  by  the  council  of  Trent,  or 
prudence   would  have   dictated    the 


THE    INTERIM.  433 

The  Interim,  of  course,  satisfied  neither  party.  The  Ca- 
tholics regarded  it  as  an  unauthorized  reformation,  the  Pro- 
testants as  disguised  popery.  Charles,  however,  in  the 
plenitude  of  his  power,  obliged  many  of  the  Lutheran  states 
to  accept  it ;  while,  as  regards  the  Catholics,  he  was  perhaps 
not  sorry  to  show  the  pope  that  he,  too,  like  Henry  VIII., 
could  regulate  the  consciences  of  his  subjects,  and  prescribe 
their  religious  faith.  He  had  broken  with  Paul  III.;  the 
council  of  Trent,  against  his  wishes,  had  been  removed  to 
Bologna  on  a  frivolous  pretext ;  and  a  schism  like  that  of 
England  was  apparently  impending.  At  the  least,  Charles 
might  not  unreasonably  desire  to  manifest  that  at  last  he  was 
independent  of  that  papal  power  with  which  mutual  necessi- 
ties had  so  long  enforced  the  closest  relations,  and  to  show 
that  deference  to  his  wishes  was  henceforth  to  be  the  price 
of  his  all-important  support.  The  steps  taken  by  Paul  prove 
not  only  the  disposition  which  then  existed  to  relax  the  rigor 
of  the  canons  respecting  celibac}r,  but  also  the  importance 
which  the  question  had  assumed  in  the  religious  disputes  of 
the  time.  He  forthwith  despatched  to  Germany  three  nun- 
cios, on  whom  he  conferred  power  to  grant  the  use  of  the  cup 
to  the  laity,  and,  under  certain  restrictions,  to  permit  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy,  with  instructions  to  give  dispensa- 
tions to  such  married  priests  as  they  might  consider  to  be 
deserving.1 

Temporary  expedients  and  compromises  such  as  these  are 
interesting  merely  as  they  mark  the  progress  of  opinion. 
Paltry  make-shifts  to  elude  the  decision  of  that  which  had  to 
be  decided,  they  exercised  little  real  influence  on  the  history 


policy  of  not  leaving  the  matter  open  :  cessions  were  all  that  were  wanted  to 

with  the  consciousness  that  the  diffi-  i  effect  a  reunion  of  the  church.     Zac- 

culty  could  only  become  daily  greater  !  caria  (NuovaGiustificaz.  pp.  145,266), 

by  tolerance.  while  admitting  the  fact,  states  that 

.  _  ..      .  .   .  ,a.     .     ,  .  n       ...     ,.  i  the    original    of    this    document   has 
i  Pallavicim  (Stona  del  Conci  ho  di    been  Jht  for  in  y&in 

Trento  Lib.  xn.  c.  b)  states  that  these  i      Both  ^  thig  and  from  the  lan_ 

nuncios  were  sent  at  the  request  of  the  j  Qf  %he  Interi       it  would  seem 

emperor,  who  desired   them  to  have  .  Jhat%ven  the  Catholic  priesthood  had 

fall  power  to  concede  the  cup  to  the  ;  fe  tQ  attribllte  to  themselves  the 

aity  and  marriage  to  the  priesthood         *ht  of  marri  That  guch  wag  the 

butthattheauthontywasonlygranted;ca^e  *.   extynt  ^  be  geen 

subject  to  certain  limitations,  although    ilereafter 

many  Catholics  thought  that  these  con-  j 

28 


434  THE    REFORMATION    IN   GERMANY. 

of  the  time.  It  is  true  that  when  Charles,  in  1551,  at  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg,  issued  a  call  for  the  reassembling  of  the  council 
of  Trent,  he  confirmed  the  Interim  until  that  council  should 
decide  all  unsettled  questions,1  yet  this  confirmation  was 
destined  to  be  effective  for  a  period  ludicrously  brief.  A 
fresh  treason  of  Maurice  of  Saxony  undid  all  that  his  former 
plotting  had  accomplished;  and,  while  Henry  II.  was 
winning  at  the  expense  of  the  empire  the  delusive  title  of 
Conqueror,  Charles  found  himself  reduced  to  the  hard  neces- 
sity of  restoring  all  that  his  crooked  policy  had  for  so  many 
years  been  devoted  to  extorting.  The  Transaction  of  Passau, 
signed  August  2d,  1552,  gave  full  liberty  of  conscience  to 
the  Lutheran  states,  until  a  national  council  or  Diet  should 
devise  means  of  restoring  the  unity  of  the  church ;  and  in 
case  such  means  could  not  be  agreed  upon,  then  the  rights 
guarantied  by  the  Transaction  were  granted  in  perpetuity.2 
If  Charles  was  disposed  to  withdraw  the  concessions  thus 
exacted  of  him,  the  miserable  siege  of  Metz  and  the  in- 
creasing desire  for  abdication  prevented  him  from  attempting 
it ;  and,  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  1555,  the  states  and  cities 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  were  confirmed  in  their  right  to 
enjoy  the  practices  of  their  religion  in  peace.3 

The  long  struggle  thus  was  over.  The  public  law  of 
Germany  at  last  recognized  the  legality  of  the  transactions 
based  upon  the  Eeformation,  and  not  the  least  in  importance 
among  those  transactions  were  the  marriages  of  the  ministers 
of  Christ. 

Let  us  now  inquire  what  influence  the  contest  exercised 
upon  the  discipline  of  the  Catholic  church  itself. 


1  Recess,  ami.  1551  c.  10  (Goldast.  II.  341). 

2  Transac.  Pataviens.  Artie,  de  Relig.  (Ibid.  I.  573). 

3  Ibid.  I.  574. 


XXVI. 
THE   COUNCIL  OF  TRENT. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  dissolute  and  unchristian 
life  of  the  priesthood  was  one  of  the  efficient  causes  which  led 
to  the  success  of  the"  Reformation.  At  an  early  period  in  the 
movement,  the  Catholic  church  felt  the  necessity  of  purifying 
itself,  if  it  was  to  retain  the  veneration  of  the  people ;  and  the 
veneration  of  the  people  was  now  not  merely  a  source  of 
revenue,  but  a  condition  of  the  very  existence  of  the  stupen- 
dous structure  reared  upon  the  credulity  of  ages.  As  soon 
as  it  became  clearly  apparent  that  Lutheranism  was  not  to  be 
suppressed  by  the  ordinary  machinery,  and  that  it  was  spread- 
ing with  a  rapidity  which  portended  the  worst  results,  an 
effort  was  made  to  remove  the  reproach  which  incorrigible 
immorality  had  entailed  upon  the  church.  Allusion  has 
been  made  above  to  the  stringent  measures  of  reform  pro- 
claimed by  the  legate  Campeggi  at  Eatisbon,  in  1524,  in 
which  he  acknowledged  that  the  new  heresy  had  no  little 
excuse  in  the  detestable  morals  and  abandoned  lives  of  the 
clergy — a  truth  repeatedly  admitted  by  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities.1     His  well-meant  endeavors  had  little  result,  and 


1  The  orator  of  the  council  of  Co-  I  alliciant ;  non  decere  dorai  alere  tot 
logne  in  1527  sharply  reminded  the  scorta  tot  Veneres,  quae  te  continue 
assembled  prelates  that  they  must  set  j  exedunt,  tuamque   substantiam  dis- 


the  example  of  obeying  their  own 
laws,  and  that  they  could  not  expect 
the  people  to  reverence  the  true 
church  so  long  as  it  notoriously  bade 
defiance  to  the  laws  of  God  and  man. 
"  Quasi  praescribatur  lex  cujus  sanci- 
tor  voluerit  esse  exlex.  Parendum 
enim  est  legi  quam  quisque  sancit  .  .  . 


perduut.  .  .  .  His  et  aliis  datur  scan- 
dalum  populo;  praebetur  offendiculum 
vulgo,  cui  hac  tempestate  vilet  et  con- 
temptui  est  ordo  quilibet  sacer.  Vilis 
plebs  te  sacerdotem  nunc  cachinnis 
atque  ludibriis  incessit  et  odit,  qui 
calumniandi  ansam  ultro  praebueris. 
Dicit  namque  :  tot  hie,  aut  ille,  scorta 


Audis    praeterea  non  licere  plurimas  i  domi  suae  ex  patrimonio  Crucifixi  nu- 
habere   uxores,   quae    animum   tuum  [  trit,  quo  non  sordida  scorta,  sed  pan- 


436 


THE    COUNCIL   OF    TRENT. 


we  have  seen  that,  some  years  later,  Erasmus  still  urged 
the  abolition  of  the  rule  of  celibacy  as  the  only  practicable 
mode  of  removing  the  scandal. 

Not  long  afterwards  the  Gallican  church  made  a  strenuous 
effort  of  the  same  nature  to  check  the  spread  of  Lutheranism. 
In  1528  the  Cardinal-legate  Duprat,  Chancellor  of  France, 
held  a  council  in  Paris,  where  he  condemned,  seriatim,  the 
new  doctrines  as  heresies,  and  elevated  the  rule  of  celibacy 
to  the  dignity  of  a  point  of  faith.1  He  also  caused  the  adop- 
tion of  a  series  of  canons  designed  to  remove  from  the  church 
the  disgrace  caused  by  the  laxity  of  clerical  morals  and  man- 
ners. The  bishops  were  instructed  to  enforce  the  decrees  of 
the  councils  and  of  the  fathers  until  coneubinage  and  inconti- 
nence should  be  completely  exterminated,  and  a  rule  was  laid 
down  which  would  have  been  eventually  effectual  if  consci- 
entiously carried  out.  No  one  was  thereafter  to  be  admitted 
to  holy  orders  without  written  testimony  as  to  his  age  and 
moral  character  from-  his  parish  priest,  substantiated  by  the 
oaths  of  two  or  three  approved  witnesses.2  At  the  same  time 
similar  councils  were  held  at  Bourges  by  the  Cardinal  Arch- 


peres  Christi  forent  sustentandi." — 
Concil.  Colon,  aim.  1527  (Hartzheim, 
VI.  210-213). 

So  at  the  council  of  Augsburg,  in 
1548,  the  orator  dwelt  upon  the  ad- 
vantage which  the  heretics  derived 
from  the  sins  of  the  clergy — "  Non 
estis  nescii,  quemadmodum  nos  haere- 
tici  apud  populurn  perpetuo  tradu- 
cant :  nos  scortatores,  nos  ambitiosos, 
nos  avaros,nos  ignavos  et  rudes  esse, 
nos  otio  semper,  luxui  et  ventri  ser- 
vire,  identidem  vociferantur  .  .  .  Su- 
perbe  itaque  illi:  sed  utinam  non 
nimium  ssepe  vere  :  nam  si  vera  potius 
hoc  loco,  quam  plausibilia,  dicenda 
sint ;  negare  certe  non  possumus,  quin 
maximam  ad  nos  accusandos  occasio- 
nem  saepe  dederimus." — Concil  Au- 
gustan, ann.  1548  (Hartzheim,  VI. 
388). 

Even  after  the  council  of  Trent  the 
same  humiliating  admissions  con- 
tinued to  be  made.  At  the  council 
of  Salzburg,  in  1569,  Christopher 
Spandel,  in  the  closing  address,  asked 


the  assembled  prelates  "  Quis  non 
animadvertit  ex  tali  vitiosa  licentia  se- 
cutum  extremum  contemptum  cleri? 
quo  quid  quaeso  (pra?sertim  apud  nos 
Germanos)  contemptius,  quid  nomine 
sacerdotis  otiosius  esse  potest  ?  ant 
quid  magis,  ab  omnibus  fere  ludibrio 
exponitur  et  subsannatur  ipso  clero  ?" 
— Synod.  Salisburg.  ann.  1569  (Hartz- 
heim, VII.  407). 

1  Quisquis  igitur  contra  sacrorum 
conciliorum  et  patrum  decreta,  sacer- 
dotes,  diaconos  aut  subdiaconos  lege 
coelibatus  non  teneri  docuerit  aut  libe- 
ras  illis  concesserit  nuptias,  inter 
haereticos,  omni  tergiversatione  re- 
jecta,  numeretur. — Concil.  Paris,  ann. 
1528,  Decret.  8. 

This,  I  think,  is  the  first  authori- 
tative promulgation  of  Damiani's 
doctrine,  which,  as  we  shall  hereafter 
see,  was  adopted,  and  extended  by  the 
council  of  Trent. 

2  Ibid.  can.  3,  27. 


EFFORTS    AT    REFORM.  437 

bishop  Tournon,  and  at  Lyons  by  Claude,  Bishop  of  Macon. 
To  what  extent  these  excellent  rules  were  put  in  force  may 
be  guessed  by  a  description  of  the  French  clergy  in  1560,  as 
portrayed  by*  Monluc,  Bishop  of  Valence,  in  a  speech  before 
the  royal  council.  The  parish  priests  were  for  the  most  part 
engrossed  in  worldly  pursuits,  and  had  obtained  their  prefer- 
ment by  illicit  means,  nor  did  there  seem  much  prospect  of 
an  improvement  so  long  as  the  prelates  were  in  the  habit  of 
bestowing  the  benefices  within  their  gift  on  their  lackeys, 
barbers,  cooks,  and  other  serving  men,  rendering  the  ecclesi- 
astics as  a  body  an  object  of  contempt  to  the  people.1  We 
need,  therefore,  not  be  surprised  to  find  in  the  councils  of  the 
period  a  repetition  of  all  the  old  injunctions,  showing  that 
the  maintenance  of  improper  consorts  and  the  disgrace  of 
priestly  families  were  undiminished  evils.2 

In  1530  Clement  VII.  addressed  himself  vigorously  to  the 
task  of  putting  an  end  to  the  scandalous  practice  of  hereditary 
transmission  of  benefices,  which  he  describes  as  almost  uni- 
versal. A  special  Bull  was  issued,  prohibiting  the  children 
of  priests  or  monks  from  enjoying  any  preferment  in  their 
father's  benefices,  and  providing  that  if  he  or  his  successors 
should  grant  dispensations  permitting  such  infraction  of  the 
canons,  they  should  be  considered  as  issued  unwittingly,  and 
be  held  null  and  void.3  Like  so  many  others,  this  Bull  seems 
to  have  been  forgotten  almost  as  soon  as  issued,  and  the  pecu- 


1  "Que  les  cures  ignorans,  avares,  '  3  Bull,  ad  Canonum  (Mag.  Bull, 
occupes  a  toute  autre  chose  qu'a  leur  Roman.  Ed.  1692,  I.  682).  "Cum  pas- 
charge,  avoyent  estes  pour  la  plus  ,  sim  sacerdotes  ut  ecclesiis  suis  eorum 
part  pourveus  de  leurs  cures  par  !  filii  potirentur  .  .  .  videlicet  quod  ipsi 
moyens  illicites  ;  qu'  autant  de  deux  !  presbyteri  eorum  crimen,  quod  erat 
escus  que  les  banquiers  avoyent  en-  |  occultum,  non  sine  turpitudine,  ob 
voyes  a  Rome,  autant  de  cures  nous  inordinatum  spuriorum  filiorum  amo- 
avoyent-ils  renvoyes.  Les  cardinaux,  j  rem  detegere  non  erubescerent,"  etc. 
les  evesques  n'avoient  faict  difficulty  |  Alexander  III.,  in  prohibiting  the 
de  bailler  leurs  benefices  a  leurs  j  sons  of  priests  from  enjoying  their 
maistres  d'hostels,  voire  a  leurs  var-  |  fathers'  benefices,  had  permitted  it  if 
lets  de  chambre,  cuisiniers,  barbiers  |  a  third  party  intervened,  and  a  dis- 
et  leurs  laquais  ;  si  bien  que  les  per-  j  pensation  for  the  irregularity  were 
sonnes  ecclesiastiques  s'estoyent  ren-  j  obtained.  The  letter  of  this  law  was 
dues  odieux  et  contemptibles  a  tout  frequently  observed,  but  its  spirit 
le  monde." — Pierre  de  la  Place,  Estat  eluded  by  nominally  passing  the  pre- 
de  Rel.  et  Rep.  Liv.  in.  ferment  through  the  hands  of  a  man 

of  straw,  and  it  was  this  abuse  which 


2  Concil.    Narbonnens.   ann.    1551 
can.  22  (Harduin.  X.  468). 


Clement  desired  to  eradicate. 


438  THE    COUNCIL    OF   TRENT. 

niary  needs  of  the  Eoman  court  rendered  it  unable  to  abandon 
so  lucrative  a  source  of  revenue.  In  1559  a  Scottish  council 
prayed  the  queen-regent  to  use  her  influence  with  the  pope 
to  prevent  any  more  papal  dispensations  being  granted  to  en- 
able illegitimate  children  to  hold  preferment  in  their  fathers' 
benefices.1 

In  Spain,  the  most  dangerous  opponent  of  the  Eeformation, 
Ignatius  Loyola,  succeeded  to  some  extent  in  repressing  the 
public  and  unblushing  manifestation  of  concubinage.  His 
biographer  states  that  the  female  companions  of  the  Penin- 
sular clergy  were  accustomed  to  pledge  their  faith  to  their 
consorts';  as  if  united  by  the  marriage  tie,  and  that  they  wore 
the  distinguishing  costume  of  married  women,  as  though 
glorying  in  their  shame.  Scandalized  by  this,  on  his  return 
to  his  native  land,  in  1535,  Ignatius  exerted  himself  to  abolish 
it,  together  with  other  priestly  peccadilloes,  and  his  influence 
was  sufficient  to  procure  the  enactment  and  enforcement  by 
the  temporal  authorities  of  sundry  laws  which  relieved  the 
Spanish  church  from  so  great  an  opprobrium.2 

A  year  later,  in  1536,  Hermann  von  Wied,  Archbishop  of 
Cologne,  undertook  the  reformation  of  his  extensive  diocese. 
He  assembled  a  council  which  issued  a  series  of  275  canons, 
prescribing  minutely  the  functions,  duties,  and  obligations  of 
all  grades  of  the  clergy.  As  regards  the  delicate  subject  of 
concubinage,  he  contented  himself  with  quoting  the  Nicene 
canon  prohibiting  the  residence  of  women  not  nearly  con- 
nected by  blood,  and  added  that  if  the  degeneracy  of  the 
times  prevented  the  enforcement  of  a  regulation  so  strict,  at 
all  events  he  forbade  the  companionship  of  females  obnoxious 


i  Wilkins,  IV.  209. 

2  "In  his  severse  leges  fuernnt  ejus 
opera  latte  a  magistratibus,  de  alea,  de 
concubinatu  sacerdotum.  Nam  cum 
patrio  more  virgines,  quoad  viro  trade- 
rentur,  capite  aperto  essent,  pessimo 


lendum  curavit."  —  Ribadeneira  Vit. 
Ignat.  Loyol.  cap.  v.  (Bayle,  Diet. 
Hist.  s.  v.  Loyola). 

Ribadeneira  was  one  of  Loyola's 
early  disciples,  and  is  therefore  good 
authority.  His  description  would  show 


leuiui ,  cctpue  ctpeitu  B»Bu,  pt»a.u«u  th&%  permanent  unions  were  formed, 
exemplo   mult* ,   cum  apud   clencos  |  £ted  b    th e  people  but  not  recog- 

turpiter  viverent  permde  caput  oh-  niz£d  .  ^  churd  in  the  game  man_ 
nubebant,acsilegitimoeismatrimonio;  ner  ag  ^  aUuded  toby  Bishop  Pe- 
junctse  luissent;    quibus  Mem  quasi  centuries  earlier.     (Ante,  p. 

mantis  prasstabant.     Quod  nefanum  j  004  \ 
institutum  ac  sacrilegum  funditus  tol- 1        '' 


PRELIMINARY    CONVOCATIONS.  439 

to  suspicion.1 .  The  good  bishop  himself  could  hardly  have 
expected  that  so  mild  an  allocution  would  have  much  effect 
upon  a  perverse  and  hardened  generation. 

During  this  time  the  Christian  world  had  constantly  and 
earnestly  demanded  the  convocation  of  an  oecumenic  council 
which  should  represent  all  parties,  should  have  full  powers  to 
reconcile  all  differences,  and  should  give  to  the  ancient  church 
the  purification  of  which  it  stood  so  sorely  in  need.  This  was 
a  remedy  to  the  last  degree  distasteful  to  the  Holy  See.  The 
recollections  of  Constance  and  Bale  were  full  of  pregnant 
warnings  as  to  the  almost  inevitable  antagonism  between  the 
Vicegerent  of  Christ  and  an  independent  representative  body, 
believing  itself  to  act  under  the  direct  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  claiming  autocratic  supremacy  in  the  church,  and  con- 
voked for  the  special  purpose  of  reforming  abuses,  the  most 
of  which  were  fruitful  sources  of  revenue  to  the  papal  court. 
Such  a  body,  assembled  in  Germany,  would  be  the  pope's  mas- 
ter ;  if  in  Italy,  his  tool ;  and  it  behooved  him  to  act  warily 
if  he  desired  to  meet  the  unanimous  demand  of  Christendom 
without  risking  the  sacrifice  of  his  most  cherished  preroga- 
tives. Had  the  council  been  called  in  the  early  days  of  the 
Reformation,  it  could  hardly  have  prevented  the  separation 
of  the  churches;  yet,  in  the  temper  which  then  existed,  it 
would  probably  have  effected  as  thorough  a  purification  of 
the  ecclesiastical  establishment  as  was  possible  in  so  corrupt 
an  age.  By  delaying  it  until  the  reactionary  movement  had 
fairly  set  in,  the  chances  of  troublesome  puritans  gaining  the 
ascendency  were  greatly  diminished,  and  the  papal  court  ex- 
posed itself  to  little  danger  when,  under  the  urgent  pressure 
of  the  emperor,  it  at  length,  in  1536,  proposed  to  convoke  the 
long  desired  assembly  at  Mantua. 

A  place  so  completely  under  papal  influence  was  not  likely 
to  meet  the  views  of  the  opposition,  and  it  is  not  surprising 
that  both  the  Lutherans  and  Henry  VIII.  refused  to  connect 
themselves  with  such  a  council.2    The  formality  of  its  opening, 


1  Concil.  Coloniens.  ann.  1536,  P.  n. 
c.  28. 

2  Their  views  are    expressed   more 
quaintly   than    elegantly    by    Henry 


VIII.  in  his  epistle  of  April  8,  1538,  to 
Charles  V.,  refusing  to  submit  himself 
to  the  council. — "  Nowe,  if  he  [the 
pope]    calle   us   to   one  of  his  owne 


440  THE    COUNCIL    OF    TRENT. 

May  17th,.  1537,  was  therefore  an  empty  ceremony;  its  transfer 
to  Vicenza  was  little  more;  and  as  no  delegates  presented 
themselves  np  to  the  1st  of  May,  1538,  it  was  prorogued  until 
Easter,  1539,  with  the  promise  of  selecting  a  satisfactory 
place  for  the  meeting.  The  pressure  still  continued  until,  in 
1542,  Paul  finally  convoked  it  to  assemble  at  Trent.  The 
Eeformers  were  no  better  satisfied  than  before.  They  had  so 
long  professed  their  readiness  to  submit  all  the  questions  in 
dispute  to  a  free  and  unbiased  general  council,  that  they  could 
not  refuse  absolutely  to  countenance  it ;  but  they  were  now 
so  completely  established  as  a  separate  organization,  that  they 
had  little  to  hope  and  everything  to  fear  from  the  appeal 
which  they  had  themselves  provoked,  and  nothing  which 
Rome  could  now  offer  would  have  brought  them  into  willing- 
attendance  upon  such  a  body.  They  accordingly  kept  aloof, 
and  on  the  assembling  of  the  council,  November  22d,  1542,  its 
numbers  were  so  scanty  that  it  broke  up  almost  immediately. 
When  again  convoked,  March  15th,  1545,  but  twenty  bishops 
and  a  few  ambassadors  were  present ;  these  waited  with  what 
patience  they  might  command  for  accessions,  which  were  so 
tardy  in  arriving  that  when  at  length  the  assembly  was  for- 
mally opened,  on  the  13th  of  December,  the  number  had 
increased  by  only  five.  For  fifteen  months  the  council  con- 
tinued its  sessions,  completely  under  the  control  of  the  pope, 
and  occupied  solely  with  measures  designed  to  draw  the 
line  between  the  Catholic  and  the  Reformed  churches  more 
sharply  than  ever. 

The  appeals  of  the  German  bishops  and  of  the  imperial 
ambassadors  for  some  effective  efforts  at  reform  became  at 
length  too  pressing,  and  to  evade  them,  in  March,  1547,  the 
council  was  transferred  to  Bologna,  against  the  earnest  pro- 
test of  the  emperor  and  the  Germans,  who  refused  to  follow. 
At  Bologna  nothing  was  done  except  to  adjourn  the  council 
from  time  to  time,  until  it  was  suspended  in  1549.  Julius  III., 
who  received  the  tiara  on  the  22d  of  February,  1550,  sig- 
nalized his  accession  by  convoking  it  again  at  Trent ;  and 
there  it  once  more  assembled  on  the  1st  of  May,  1551. 


townes,  we  be  afraid  to  be  at  suche  an  j  oure    bellyes    fulle."    (Select.    Harl. 
hostes  table.    We  saye,  Better  to  ryse    Miscell.,  London,  1793,  p.  137.) 
a  bungred,  then  to  goo   thense  with  ! 


FINAL    ASSEMBLY    AT    TRENT.  441 

At  that  time  Lutheranism  in  Germany  was  under  the  heel 
of  Charles  V. ;  Maurice  of  Saxony  was  ripening  his  schemes 
of  revolt,  and  concealing  them  with  the  dexterity  in  which 
he  was  unrivalled;  it  was  the  policy  of  both  that  Protestant 
theologians  should  take  part  in  the  discussions — of  the  one,  that 
they  should  there  receive  their  sentence ;  of  the  other,  that  their 
presence  might  assist  in  cloaking  his  designs.  The  flight 
from  Innspruck,  followed  by  the  Transaction  of  Passau, 
changed  the  face  of  affairs.  The  Lutheran  doctors  rejoicingly 
shook  the  dust  from  their  feet  as  they  departed  from  Trent, 
complaining  that  they  had  been  treated  as  criminals  on  trial, 
not  as  venerable  members  of  a  bcdy  assembled  to  decide  the 
gravest  questions  relating  to  this  life  and  that  to  come. 
Other  symptoms  of  revolt  among  the  Catholic  nations  were 
visible,  and  on  the  28th  of  April,  1552,  the  council  again 
broke  up. 

Ten  years  passed  away;  the  faithful  impatiently  demanded 
the  continuation  of  the  work  which  had  only  been  com- 
menced, and  at  last  the  pressure  became  so  strong  that 
Pius  IY.  was  obliged  to  reassemble  the  council.  His  Bull 
bears  date  November,  1560,  but  it  was  not  until  twenty  years 
after  Trent  had  witnessed  the  first  convocation,  that  the  holy 
men  again  gathered  within  its  walls,  and  on  the  18th  of 
January,  1562,  the  council  resumed  its  oft-interrupted  sessions. 

During  this  long-protracted  farce  there  were  times  when 
those  who  sincerely  desired  the  restoration  of  the  church 
could  not  restrain  their  impatience.  In  1536,  Paul  III.,  who 
earnestly  admitted  the  necessity  of  some  reform,  called  to  his 
aid  nine  of  his  prelates  most  eminent  for  virtue  and  piety,  as 
a  commission  to  prepare  a  scheme  for  internal  reformation. 
According  to  a  papal  historian,  his  object  in  this  was  to  stop 
the  mouths  of  the  heretics  who  found  in  the  Eoman  court  an 
inexhaustible  subject  of  declamation.1  For  two  years  the 
commission  labored  at  its  work,  and  finally  produced  a 
"Consilium  de  emendanda  ecclesia,"  which  went  far  enough 
to  arouse  the  opposition  of  those  whose  abuses  it  attacked, 


Per  serrar  la  bocca  acd'  heretiei  i 


Roma. — Carraciolo,  Vita  di  Paolo  IV. 


quali  non  facevano  altro  in  voce  et  in  j  MS.  Br.  Mus.    (Young,  Life  and  Times 
scritto   che   dir   male  della   corte   di  i  of  Aonio  Paleario,  I.  261.) 


442  THE    COUNCIL    OF    TRENT. 

but  which  was  so  utterly  inadequate  to  the  needs  of  the  time 
that  it  gave  satisfaction  to  no  one.  The  heretics  reproduced 
it  with  comments  as  an  effective  pamphlet  for  their  cause,  and 
only  clamored  the  more  loudly  for  a  General  Council;  and 
when  the  head  of  the  commission  and  principal  author  of  the 
"Consilium,"  Cardinal  Caraffa,  became  pope  under  the  name 
of  Paul  IV.,  he  quietly  put  his  own  work,  in  1559,  into  the 
Index  Expurgatorius,  as  the  best  mode  of  getting  rid  of  the 
heretical  commentaries  upon  it.1 

As  the  pope  himself  was  thus  powerless,  the  only  hope  of 
a  radical  change,  such  as  was  needful,  was  seen  to  lie  in  the 
untrammelled  debates  of  a  great  assembly,  which  should  meet 
as  a  parliament  of  the  nations;  and  this  grew  more  and  more 
distant.  When  the  unmannerly  urgency  of  Germany  in  1547 
caused  the  translation  of  the  council  to  Bologna,  and  appa- 
rently put  a  stop  to  its  further  labors,  Charles  V.  resolved  to 
take  the  matter  into  his  own  hands,  and  to  effect  for  his  own 
dominions,  at  least,  that  which  had  been  vainly  expected  of 
the  council  for  Christendom.  The  "Interim,"  which  has 
already  been  alluded  to,  was  intended  to  answer  this  purpose 
as  far  as  Lutheranism  was  concerned,  in  healing  the  breach 
of  religion.  The  other  great  object  of  the  council,  the  resto- 
ration of  the  neglected  discipline  of  the  church,  he  attempted 
to  effect  by  means  of  the  secular  authority  of  the  empire 
acting  on  the  regular  machinery  of  the  Teutonic  ecclesiastical 
establishment.  How  utterly  neglected  that  discipline  had 
become  is  inferable  from  an  expression  in  the  important  and 
carefully  drawn  project  laid  by  Charles  before  the  Diet  of 
Eatisbon  in  1541,  to  the  effect  that  if  the  canon  requiring 
celibacy  was  to  be  enforced,  it  would  be  necessary  also  to 
revive  those  canons  which  punished  incontinence,  thus  admit- 
ting that  there  existed  no  check  whatever  upon  immorality.2 


1  Luther  immediately  translated  the  I  it  is  prohibited  "cum  notis  vel  prae- 
"  Consilium,"  and  published  it,  with  a  j  fationibus  Hsereticorum." 
commentary    at  Wittenberg  in  1538.        2  referring    to    the   variable 

^wTf  (  clt-\tofw^om  *; am!  practice  of  the  church  in  different 
indebted  for  an  account  of  the  matter,:  J  th      document    proceeds:    "In 

speaks  as  though  Caraffa  desired  to  -°  >  canonum  diversitate,  si  pos. 
suppress  his  own  work,  but  his  Pro-  ,  %monM   oranino         thac   reti. 

testantism  is  of  so  aggressive  a  0**;  nendi  sant>  neoessarinm  quoqne  erit, 
racter  that  he  can  scarcely  be  regarded  censune'qu£e  in  foruioarios  in  vete- 
as  an  impartial  guide.     In  the  Index  j  1 


LOCAL    REFORM    IN   GERMANY 


443 


With  this  object  lie  accordingly  caused  the  adoption  by 
the  Diet  of  Augsburg  of  a  code  of  reformation,  well  adapted, 
if  enforced,  to  restore  the  long-forgotten  purity  of  the  church, 
while  at  the  same  time  it  acknowledged  that  the  degeneracy 
of  the  times  rendered  impossible  the  revival  of  the  ancient 
canons  in  their  strictness.  Thus,  after  reciting  the  canon  of 
Neocaesarea  (see  p.  49),  it  adds,  that  as  such  severity  was  now 
impracticable,  those  in  holy  orders  convicted  of  impurity 
should  be  separated  from  their  concubines,  and  visited  with 
suspension  from  function  and  benefice  proportioned  to  the 
gravity  of  the  offence.  A  repetition  of  the  fault  was  punish- 
able with  increased  severity,  and  incorrigible  sinners  who 
were  found  to  be  incapable  of  reformation,  were  finally  to  be 
deprived  of  their  benefices.  As  concubines  were  threatened 
with  immediate  excommunication,  it  is  evident  that  a  severity 
was  designed  towards  them  which  was  not  ventured  on  with 
respect  to  their  more  guilty  partners.  Relaxation  of  the 
rules  is  also  observable  in  the  section  which,  despite  the 
Nicene  canon,  permitted  the  residence  of  women  over  forty 
years  of  age,  whose  character  and  conduct  relieved  them  from 
suspicion.1  The  imperative  injunctions  of  chastity  laid  upon 
the  regular  clergy,  canons  and  nuns,  show  not  only  the  deter- 
mination to  remove  the  prevailing  scandals,  but  also  the 
magnitude  and  extent  of  the  evil.2 

Nor  was  this  all.  Local  councils  were  ordered  for  the  pur- 
pose of  embodying  these  decrees  in  their  statutes,  and  of 
carrying  out  with  energy  the  reformation  so  earnestly  desired. 
Thus,  in  November,  1548,  about  five  months  after  the  Diet,  a 
synod  assembled  at  Augsburg,  which  inveighed  bitterly 
against  the  unclerical  dress  and  pomp  of  the  clergy,  their 
habits  of  drunkenness,  gluttony,  licentiousness,  tavern- 
lounging,  and  general  disregard  of  discipline;  and  adopted  a 
canon  embracing  the  regulations  enacted  by  the  emperor.3 
The  Archbishop  of  Treves  did  not  wait  for  his  synod,  but 


ribus  canonibus  distringuntur  in  usum 
quoque  revocentur." — Lib.  ad  Ration. 
Concord,  ineundam  Art.  xxu.  §  13. 
(Goldast.  II.  199.) 


1  Formul.  Reformat,  cap.  xvn.  §  4. 
(Goldast.  II.  335.) 

2  Ibid.  cap.  in.  §  1,  cap.  v.  §§  7,  9. 

3  Synod.     Augustan,     ann.     1548, 
c.  10. 


444  THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT. 

issued,  October  30th,  a  mandate  especially  directed  against 
concubinary  priests,  in  which  he  announced  his  intention  of 
carrying  out  the  reform  commanded  by  Charles.  He  could 
find  no  reason  more  self-evident  for  the  dislike  and  contempt 
felt  by  the  people  for  so  many  of  the  clergy  than  the  immo- 
rality of  their  lives,  differing  little,  except  in  legality,  from 
open  marriage.  "  This  vice,  existing  everywhere  throughout 
our  diocese,  in  consequence  of  the  license  of  the  times  and 
the  neglect  of  the  officials,  we  must  eradicate.  Therefore  all 
of  you,  of  what  grade  soever,  shall  dismiss  your  concubines 
within  nine  days,  removing  them  beyond  the  bounds  of  your 
parishes,  and  be  no  longer  seen  to  associate  Avith  loose  and 
wanton  women.  Those  who  neglect  this  order  shall  be 
suspended  from  office  and  benefice,  their  concubines  shall  be 
excommunicated,  and  they  themselves  be  brought  before  our 
synod  to  be  presently  held."1 

These  were  brave  words,  but  when,  some  three  weeks  later, 
the  synod  was  assembled,  and  the  malefactors  perchance 
brought  before  it,  the  good  bishop  found  apparently  that  his 
flock  was  not  disposed  to  submit  quietly  to  the  curtailment 
of  privileges  which  had  almost  become  imprescriptible.  His 
tone  accordingly  was  softened,  for  though  he  deprecated 
their  immorality  more  strongly  than  ever,  and  asserted  his 
intention  of  enforcing  his  mandate,  he  condescended  to  argue 
at  much  length  on  the  propriety  of  chastity,  and  even  de- 
scended to  entreaty,  beseeching  them  to  preserve  the  purity 
so  essential  to  the  character  of  the  church.2  How  slender 
was  his  success  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  next 
year  he  felt  it  necessary  to  hold  another  synod,  in  which  he 
renewed  and  confirmed  the  proceedings  of  the  former  one, 
and  endeavored  to  reduce  the  monks  and  nuns  of  his  diocese 
into  some  kind  of  subjection  to  the  rules  of  discipline.3 


1  Synod.  Trevirens.  aim.  1548.  I  misericors  est),  ut  secundum    liujus 

o  r,    .   rM1.  .,  ,   ,  '  sanctissimse    synodi   decretum,  se  ad 

■  Qui  [illicitus  sacerdo  um  concu-  .tatem    J         convertant/  poeni- 

binatus]  quantum  j am  inde  ab  initio,  ^      x  d  entur  er/or^  sni 

apud  omnes  iidei    Catnolici  cultores,  r    ,  «   r       ,  .      '. 

,.,..,  ...      .'    veniam  apud  Deum  et  homines  conse- 

consecratis  hominibus  peperent  mvi-  X        -.    m  tf.aq 

,.         ,  -i.      J-      •       j-  •    cuturi. — Synod.  Trevirens.  aim.  1548, 

dise    atque   conscivent  odn   vix   dici  i  ..        ' 

potest.  .  .  .  Illis  nimirumabactisejus- ;      P" 

modi  incontinentia  latrinis,  pie  con-  j      3  Synod.   Trevirens.    II.  aim.  1549, 

sulimus  (quoniam  Deus  benignus  et  I  cap.  xi.  xix. 


LOCAL    REFORM    IN   GERMANY.  445 

The  Archbishop  of  Cologne  was  as  energetic  as  his  brother 
of  Treves,  with  about  equal  success.  On  September  1st  he 
issued  the  Augsburg  Formula  of  Keformation,  with  a  call 
for  a  synod  to  be  held  on  October  2d.  At  the  same  time 
he  manifested  his  sense  of  the  primary  importance  of  cor- 
recting clerical  immorality  by  promulgating  a  special  man- 
date respecting  concubinage.  He  asserted  this  to  be  the 
chief  cause  of  the  contempt  popularly  felt  for  the  church,1 
and  he  ordered  all  ecclesiastics  to  send  their  women  beyond 
the  bounds  of  their  parishes  within  nine  days,  under  the 
penalties  provided  in  the  imperial  decree.  The  synod  was 
held  at  the  time  indicated,  and  though  it  adopted  no  regular 
canons,  it  accepted  the  Augsburg  Formula  and  the  mandate 
of  the  archbishop,  with  a  trifling  alteration.2 

This  proved  utterly  ineffectual,  for  in  March,  1549,  he 
assembled  a  provincial  council,  in  which  he  deplored  the 
license  of  the  times,  which  rendered  the  strictness  of  the 
ancient  canons  unadvisable,  and  announced  that  it  had  been 
decided  to  proceed  gradually  with  the  intended  reforms.  As 
to  the  morals  of  the  clergy,  he  stated  that  everywhere  the 
cure  of  souls  was  delegated  to  improper  persons,  many  of 
them  living  in  the  foulness  of  concubinage,  in  perpetual 
drunkenness,  and  in  other  infamous  vices,  encouraged  by  the 
negligence  of  bishops  and  the  thirst  of  archdeacons  for  un- 
hallowed gains.  The  unions  of  those  who,  infected  by  the 
new  heresies,  did  not  hesitate  to  enter  into  matrimony,  were 
of  course  pronounced  illicit  and  impious,  their  offspring  ille- 
gitimate, and  the  parents  anathematized ;  but  for  those  who 
remained  in  the  church,  yet  submitted  to  no  restraint  upon 
their  passions,  a  more  merciful  spirit  was  shown,  for  the 
punishments  ordered  by  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  were  some- 
what liohtened  in  their  favor.     The  extreme  license  of  the 


1  Cum  inter  omnia  crimina  nullum    sione  coerceamus. — Mandat.  de  abjic. 
fere  sit,  quod  clerum  foedius  apud  po-    Concub.  (Hartzheim,  VI.  353.) 


pulum  tradueat,  et  majus  in  plebe 
scandalum  pariat  quam  scortatio  ma 
nifesta,  visum   est  nobis    operee  prse 


2  Ibid.  p.  358.     A  Diocesan  Synod 
was  also  held  at  Liege,  Nov.  15,  which 


"ueMl1';     T  T;     *T     gave  offending  clerks  fifteen  days  to 

tmm,  at  quod  majorem  praebet  eccle-    *  ^  concubines  (Ibi/  VL 

siasticiordinis  contemnendi  matenam,    £n,-.  v 


;pecialiori  et  accuratiori  animadver- 


395). 


446 


THE   COUNCIL   OF    TRENT. 


period  may  be  understood  from  another  canon  directed 
against  the  comedians,  who,  not  content  with  the  ordinary 
theatres,  were  in  the  habit  of  visiting  the  nunneries,  where 
their  profane  plays  and  amatory  acting  excited  to  unholy 
desires  the  virgins  dedicated  to  God.1  No  one  acquainted 
with  the  coarseness  of  the  drama  of  that  rude  age  can  doubt 
the  propriety  of  the  archbishop's  reproof.  Supplementary 
synods  were  also  held  in  October,  1549,  and  February,  1550, 
to  perfect  the  details  of  a  very  thorough  inquisitorial  visita- 
tion of  the  whole  province. 

This  visitation,  so  pompously  heralded,  did  not  take  place. 
At  a  synod  held  in  October,  1550,  the  archbishop  made  sundry 
lame  excuses  for  its  postponement.  Another  synod  was 
assembled  in  February,  1551,  at  which  we  hear  nothing  more 
of  it;  but  the  prelates  of  the  diocese  were  requested  to  collect 
such  ancient  and  forgotten  canons  as  they  could  find,  which 
might  be  deemed  advantageous  in  the  future  ;2  and  with  this 
the  work  of  reformation  in  the  province  of  Cologne  appears 
to  end. 

In  October  and  November,  1548,  and  April,  1549,  the 
Bishops  of  Paderborn,  Wurzburg,  and  Strasburg  held  synods 
which  adopted  the  reformatory  measures  decreed  at  Augs- 
burg.3 These  were  preparatory  to  the  metropolitan  synod  of 
Mainz,  assembled  in  May,  1549,  which  commanded  that  no 
one  should  be  thereafter  admitted  to  orders  without  a  prelimi- 
nary examination  by  his  bishop  on  the  subject  of  doctrine, 
and  testimonials  from  the  people  as  to  purity  of  character. 
After  thus  wisely  providing  for  the  future,  attention  was 
directed  to  the  present.  It  was  declared  intolerable  that,  in 
spite  of  the  reiterated  prohibitions  of  the  fathers  and  councils, 
concubines  should  be  universally  kept;  the  Basilian  canon 
was  therefore  revived,  and  its  enforcement  strictly  enjoined 


1  Concil.  Coloniens.  arm.  1549,  cap. 
Quibus  possint. — Cap.  de  Monach. 
conjugat.— Cap.  de  Concub.  Monach. 
— Cap.  Comoedias. 

*  Hartzheira,  VI.  767,  781. 

3  Gropp,  Collect.  Script.  Wirceburg. 
I.  311.— Hartzheira,  VI.  359,  417.  In 
the   epistle    convoking    his    council, 


Bishop  Melchior  of  Wurzburg  al- 
luded passionately  to  the  evils  every- 
where existing:  "  Videtis  percussum 
pastorem  ;  videtis  oves  dispersas;  vi- 
detis impudentempeccandi  licentiam ; 
videtis  adversus  pietatem  audaciam 
turn  loquendi  turn  disputandi  impiis- 
simam,  et  indies  scelerata  gliscere 
schisinata"  (Ibid.  X.  753). 


REFORMATORY    EFFORTS    UNSUCCESSFUL.        447 

on  the  ordinaries,  who  were  forbidden  in  any  manner  to  con- 
nive at  these  disorders  for  the  sake  of  profit.1 

The  pressure  was  continued,  for  when  Cambrai,  which 
owed  temporal  obedience  to  the  emperor,  while  ecclesiasti- 
cally it  formed  part  of  the  province  of  Eheims,  neglected  to 
adopt  the  Formula  of  Augsburg  for  two  years,  it  was  not 
allowed  to  escape.  In  October,  1550,  a  synod  was  finally 
assembled  there  under  stringent  orders  from  Charles,  and  the 
Formula  was  published,  together  with  an  elaborate  series  of 
canons,  which  would  have  been  well  adapted  to  correct 
abuses  that  were  not  incorrigible.2 

Charles  had  thus  exerted  all  the  resources  of  his  imperial 
supremacy,  and,  whether  willingly  or  not,  the  powerful  pre- 
lates who  ruled  the  German  church  had  united  in  carrying 
out  his  views.  The  temporal  and  spiritual  authorities  had 
thus  been  concentrated  upon  the  vices  of  the  church,  and  if 
its  reformation  had  been  possible  in  the  existing  condition  of 
its  organization,  some  improvement  must  have  resulted  from 
these  combined  and  persistent  efforts.  When  their  failure, 
therefore,  was  found  to  be  complete,  there  arose  in  the  minds 
of  thinking  men  a  conviction,  such  as  Erasmus  had  already 
declared,  that,  since  all  other  measures  had  proved  fruitless, 
the  only  mode  of  securing  a  virtuous  clergy  was  to  remove 
the  prohibition  of  marriage.  This  opinion  gained  ground, 
until  at  length  it  won  even  the  highest  dignitaries  of  the 
empire,  and  in  1560  the  Emperor  Ferdinand  himself  under- 
took its  advocacy  with  the  pope,  after  having  for  some  years 
countenanced  the  practice  within  his  own  territories. 

Almost  immediately  on  the  consecration  of  Pius  IV.,  in 
addressing  to  him  an  urgent  request  for  the  reassembling  of 
the  council  of  Trent,  or  the  convocation  of  a  new  council, 
Ferdinand  seized  the  opportunity  to  ask  especially  for  the 
communication  of  the  cup  to  the  laity,  and  permission  for 
the  clergy  to  marry.  The  latter  of  these  points  he  consid- 
ered to  be  the  only  remedy  for  the  fearful  immorality  of 
the  church,   for  though  all   flesh  was  corrupt,  the  corrup- 


1  Concil.  Mogunt.  ann.  1549,  u.  82,  I      2  Synod.  Camerac.  ann.  1550  (Hartz- 
102.  |  heiiu,  VI.  654). 


448 


THE    COUNCIL    OF    TRENT 


tion  of  the  priesthood  surpassed  that  of  all  other  men.1 
That  he  had  not  waited  for  the  papal  assent  to  favor  these 
innovations  .within  his  own  dominions  is  shown  by  his  state- 
ment that  the  Archbishop  of  Salzburg  had  recently,  in  a 
synod,  earnestly  called  upon  him  to  put  a  stop  to  the  progress 
which  they  were  making,  but,  he  added,  his  long  experience 
in  such  matters  had  shown  him  what  was  possible,  and  what 
impossible,  and  he  had  accordingly  set  forth  the  difficulties 
of  the  task  in  a  paper  addressed  to  the  archbishop,  a  copy  of 
which  he  inclosed  to  the  pope.2 

The  nuncio  Commendone,  in  transmitting  this  document  to 
Kome,  accompanied  it  with  a  letter  from  the  Cardinal  Bishop 
of  Augsburg,  recommending  the  postponement  of  the  ques- 
tion until  the  reassembling  of  the  council  of  Trent,  and  no 
further  action  was  taken.  When  Commendone,  however, 
passed  through  Cleves  on  his  way  to  the  council,  then  about 
to  be  reopened,  the  Duke  of  Cleves  earnestly  besought  him 
to  lend  his  influence  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  measure, 
urging  as  a  reason  that  in  the  whole  of  his  dominions — and 
he  was  sovereign  of  three  populous  duchies — there  could  not 
be  found  five  priests  who  did  not  keep  concubines.  In 
order  to  secure  his  favor  for  the  approaching  council,  Com- 
mendone did  not  scruple  to  hold  out  expectations  that  the 
concessions  would  be  granted.3 

During  the  progress  of  the  Keformation,  when  the  fate  of 


1  Benche  ogne  carne  fosse  corrotta, 
nondimeno  la  corruzione  allora  tro- 
varsi  maggiore  die  in  tutti  negli  eccle- 
siastici. — Pallavicini,  Storia  del  Con- 
cil.  di  Trento  Lib.  xiv.  c.  13. 

Twelve  years  before,  his  uncle,  the 
Bishop  of  Liege,  in  promulgating  the 
Augsburg  formula  of  reformation,  had 
made  a  similar  assertion — "  Preter- 
quam  quod  hoc  infoelici  sseculo,  quo 
omnis  caro  corrupit  viam  suara,  prse- 
sertimque  ordo  clericorum  et  ecclesi- 
asticorum  nimium  degenerant,  plus 
quam  unquam  est  necessaria." — Con- 
cil.  Leodiens.  ami.  1548  (Hartzheim, 
VI.  392).  The  increased  emphasis  of 
Ferdinand  is  a  measure  of  the  success 
which  had  attended  the  reformatory 
movements  of  Charles  V.  during  the 
interval. 


2  Pallavicini,  loc.  cit.  That  the 
Catholic  church  of  Germany  had  be- 
come widely  infected  with  this  Lu- 
theran heresy  is  also  shown  by  the 
fact  that  in  1548  the  Archbishop  of 
Cologne  had  found  it  necessary  to  pro- 
hibit throughout  his  province  all  mar- 
riages of  priests,  monks  and  nuns,  and 
had  pronounced  illegitimate  the  off- 
spring of  such  unions. — Hartzheim, 
VI.  357. 

3  Pallavicini,  Lib.  xv.  c.  5.  "  Al 
secondo  allegava  recar  necessita  l'in- 
continenza  de'  preti,  de'  quali  cinque 
non  si  numeravano  nel  suo  dominio 
che  non  tenessero  pubbliche  concu- 
bine."— The  duke,  though  no  bigot, 
was  a  good  Catholic. 


Ferdinand's  appeal.  449 

the  Catholic  church  of  Germany  had  sometimes  seemed  to 
hang  in  the  balance,  no  princes  had  earned  a  larger  title  to 
the  gratitude  of  Eome  than  the  powerful  Dukes  of  Bavaria, 
who  were  the  leaders  of  the  reaction.  Yet  now  the  influence 
of  that  important  region  was  thrown  in  favor  of  the  abroga- 
tion of  celibacy,  and  Duke  Albert  was  the  first  who  boldly 
brought  the  matter  before  the  council  by  a  demand  for  eccle- 
siastical marriage,  presented  on  the  27th  of  June,  1562.  To 
this  the  evasive  answer  %was  returned  that  the  council  would 
take  such  action  as  would  be  found  to  redound  to  the  glory 
of  Grod  and  to  the  benefit  of  the  church.1  During  the  same 
year  the  Emperor  Ferdinand  also  urged  its  consideration. 
A  plan  for  the  reform  of  the  church  presented  by  his  delegates 
not  only  called  attention  to  the  necessity  of  purifying  the 
morals  of  the  regular  and  secular  clergy,  but  demanded  that 
to  some  nations,  at  least,  the  privilege  of  sacerdotal  marriage 
should  be  conceded.2 

Another  document  is  extant,  without  date,  which  was  laid 
before  the  council  in  the  joint  names  of  Ferdinand  and  Albert, 
in  which  the  question  was  argued  at  considerable  length  and 
with  much  vehemence.  After  proving  from  the  records  of 
the  primitive  church  that  celibacy  was  not  then  recognized 
as  imperative,  it  proceeded  to  declare  that  if  marriage  ever 
were  permissible,  the  present  carnal  and  licentious  age  ren- 
dered it  a  necessity,  for  not  one  Catholic  priest  out  of  fifty 
could  be  found  who  lived  chastely.  All  were  asserted  to  be 
notoriously  dissolute,  scandalizing  the  people  and  inflicting 
great  damage  on  the  church.  The  request  was  made  not  so 
much  to  satisfy  the  priests  who  desired  marriage  as  to  meet 
the  wishes  of  the  laity,  for  many  patrons  of  livings  refused 
presentation  to  all  but  married  men.  However  preferable  a 
single  life  might  be  for  the  clergy,  it  therefore  was  thought 


1  Pallavicini,  Lib.  xvn.   c.   4.     At  '  14.    Cogitandum  qua  rationeclerus  ad 
the  request  of  Duke  Albert,  the  ques-    vitam  priorem  rednoatur.. 

tiou  was  also  mooted  at  the  provincial  ;  No.  15.  Quo  pacto  monasticus  or&o 
synod  of  Salzburg,  held  in  1562  for  ad  primivitam  institutionem  redinte- 
the  purpose  of  sending  delegates  to  gretur,  ne  tantae  monasteriorum  divi- 
Treut. — Hartzheira,  VII.  230.  tiae  tarn  flagitiose  dissipentur. 

o    .    ..     ,.    ,     r>  t  -c     i  xr  No.  18.  Conjugium  clericorum  ali- 

2  Articuh  de  Reform.   bccles. — No.         ..  ..     .,°  , 

quibus    natiombus    concedendum.  — 


Uoldast.  II.  3 


29 


450  THE    COUNCIL    OF    TRENT. 

better  to  give  it  up  than  to  leave  open  the  door  to  the  scan- 
dalous impurities  traceable  to  celibacy.  Another  weighty 
reason  was  alleged  in  the  great  scarcity  of  priests,  caused 
alone  by  the  prohibition  of  marriage,  in  proof  of  which  it 
was  urged  that  the  Catholic  schools  of  divinity  were  all  but 
empty  and  the  episcopal  function  of  ordination  nearly  dis- 
used, while  the  Lutheran  colleges  were  crowded  by  those 
who  subsequently  obtained  admission  into  the  true  church, 
where  they  worked  incredible  mischief.  The  argument  that 
the  temporal  possessions  of  the  church  would  be  imperilled 
by  sacerdotal  matrimony  was  met  by  indignantly  denouncing 
the  worldly  wisdom  which  would  protect  such  perishable 
interests  at  the  cost  of  innumerable  souls  sacrificed  by  the 
existing  condition  of  affairs.  For  these  and  other  reasons  it 
asked  that  marriage  should  in  future  be  allowed  to  all  the 
priesthood,  whether  already  in  orders  or  to  be  subsequently 
admitted:  that  married  men  of  good  character  and  education 
should  be  ordained  to  supply  the  want  of  pastors:  that 
those  who  had  contracted  matrimony,  in  contravention  of  the 
canons,  should  no  longer  be  ejected,  seeing  that  it  was  most 
absurd  to  turn  out  men  because  they  were  married,  while 
retaining  notorious  concubinarians,  and  that  if,  with  equal 
justice,  both  classes  should  be  dismissed,  the  people  would  be 
left  almost,  if  not  entirely,  destitute  of  spiritual  guides.  The 
paper  concluded  by  asserting  that  if  the  prayer  be  granted 
the  clergy  could  be  retained  in  the  church  and  in  the  faith,  to 
the  great  benefit  of  their  flocks,  and  that  the  scandal  of  pro- 
miscuous licentiousness,  which  had  involved  the  church  in  so 
much  disgrace,  would  be  removed.1 

I  have  given  a  tolerably  full  abstract  of  this  curious  docu- 
ment, not  because  it  produced  any  effect,  but  because  it 
affords  a  vivid  picture  of  the  condition  of  the  church,  with 
the  evils  which  were  everywhere  felt,  and  the  remedies  which 
suggested  themselves  to  clear-sighted  and  impartial  men.  To 
all  such  arguments  the  council  of  Trent  was  deaf.  The  Gal- 
lican  church  was  willing  to  see  celibacy  abolished,  and  the 
Cardinal  of  Lorraine,   its   powerful   representative,  was  in- 


1  Considerat.  Caesar.  Majest.  sup.  Matriin.  Sacerd.  Nos.  6,  7,  8,  10,  11,  12, 
13,  15,  16,  17  (Goldast.  II.  382-3). 


DOCTRINAL   POINTS.  451 

structed,  in  case  the  council  would  not  agree  to  such  a  change, 
to  urge  that  none  but  elderly  men  should  be  eligible  to  the 
priesthood,  and  that  the  testimony  of  the  people  in  favor  of 
their  moral  character  should  be  a  prerequisite  to  ordination, 
in  hopes  that  by  such  means  the  necessary  purification  of 
the  clergy  at  least  could  be  effected.1  The  cardinal  himself 
was  favorably  disposed  to  the  abrogation  of  celibacy,  but 
Eome  shrank  from  an  experiment  so  hazardous,  and  so  com- 
pletely at  variance  with  her  principles  for  a  thousand  years.2 

On  the  8th  of  February,  1563,  after  the  council  had  been 
in  session  for  more  than  a  year,  the  theologians  at  last  ar- 
ranged for  disputation  the  articles  on  matrimony,  and  laid 
them  before  the  council  for  discussion.  They  were  divided 
into  five  classes,  of  which  the  fourth  was  devoted  to  the  bear- 
ing of  the  subject  on  the  clergy,  consisting  of  two  pro- 
positions artfully  drawn  up  to  justify  rejection — That  matri- 
mony was  preferable  to  celibacy,  and  that  God  bestowed  grace 
on  the  married  rather  than  on  the  single. — That  the  priests  of 
the  Western  Church  could  lawfully  contract  marriage,  not- 
withstanding the  canons ;  that  to  deny  this  was  to  condemn 
matrimony,  and  that  all  were  at  liberty  to  marry  who  did  not 
feel  themselves  graced  with  the  gift  of  chastity.3 

The  disputation  on  the  various  questions  connected  with 
matrimony  commenced  the  next  day  and  was  continued  at 
intervals  for  six  months.  By  August  7th  all  the  canons  on 
the  subject  were  agreed  to,  except  the  one  on  clandestine 
marriages,  which  gave  the  fathers  much  more  trouble  than 
the  more  important  decision  respecting  the  retention  of  celi- 
bacy.4    This  latter,  indeed,  would  seem  to  have  been  a  fore- 


1  Capi  dati  da'  Francesi  cap.  1. —  i  [post]ponendum  sed  anteferendum 
Cum  sacerdotes  in  primis  castos  esse  !  castitati,  et  Deum  dare  conj ugibus 
oporteat  .  .  .  provideat  S.  synodus  ut  j  majorem  gratiam  quam  aliis. 

non  alii  in  posterum  ordinentur  sacer-  i  Art.  vi.  Licite  contrahere  posse  ma- 
dotes  quam  qui  seniores  sunt,  et  a  pop-  \  trimonium  sacerdotes  Occidentales, 
ulo  bonumhabeant  testimonium,  ut  ex  j  noft  obstante  lege  ecclesiastica,  et  op- 
anteacta  vita  quales  postea  sint  futuri  j  posita  nil  aliud  esse  quam  damnare 
non  levis  conjectura :  et  sacerdotum  |  matrimonia,  posseque  omnes  con- 
libidines  et  flagitia  acerrimis  canonum  trabere  matrimonium  qui  non  sentiunt 
poems  coerceantur.  (Baluz.  et  Mansi  se  habere  donum  castitatis. — Lettere 
IV.  374)  Comp.  Zaccaria  pp.  133-4.       del  Arcivesc.  Calini  (Baluz.  et  Mansi 

2  Henke,  App.  ad  Calixt.  p.  599.         1V*  295)* 

»  Art.    v.    Matrimonium    non   pro-         *  Lettere  di  Calini  <Ibid'  326>- 


452  THE    COUNCIL   OF   TRENT. 

gone  conclusion.  In  the  minute  account,  transmitted  from 
day  to  day  by  Archbishop  Calini  to  Cardinal  Cornaro,  in 
which  all  the  details  of  internal  discussion  and  external  in- 
trigue attainable  by  a  quick-witted  member  of  the  council 
were  reported,  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  subject.  No  debates 
or  diversity  of  opinion  are  mentioned,  no  intimation  that  the 
matter  was  regarded  as  open  to  a  doubt,  and  even  the  appeals 
made  by  the  emperor- and  other  potentates  are  passed  over  in 
silence.  So,  in  the :  correspondence  of  the  nuncio  Yisconti, 
the  only  allusion  to  the  matter  is  a  simple  reference,  under 
date  of  March  22,  1563,  to  the  demand  previously  made  by 
the  Duke  of  Bavaria.1 

In  fact,  when,  on  March  4th,  the  5th  and  6th  articles  were 
reached,  they  were  both  unanimously  pronounced  heretical 
without  any  prolonged  debate.  Doctor  Juan  de  Ludegna 
pronounced  a  "disputation"  on  the  subject,  the  tone  of  which 
showed  that  the  result  was  already  decided,  and  that  the  only 
disposition  of  the  council  was  to  vilify  those  who  desired 
the  abrogation  of  celibacy.2  A  discussion,  however,  then 
arose  as  to  the  power  of  the  pope  to  dispense  the  clergy,  both 
regular  and  secular,  from  the  obligation  of  celibacy,  and  on 
this  point  there  was  considerable  diversity  of  opinion,  occu- 
pying numerous  successive  meetings  in  its  settlement.  The 
majority  were  in  favor  of  the  papal  power;  and  its  exercise  in 
the  existing  condition  of  the  church  was  even  recommended 
by  those  who  recognized  the  evils  of  the  system,  but  shrank 
from  the  responsibility  of  themselves  introducing  the  inno- 
vation. This  was  promptly  rebuked  by  the  conservatives, 
according  to  Fra  Paolo,  with  the  remark  that  a  prudent  phy- 
sician would  not  attempt  to  cure  one  disease  by  bringing  on 
a  greater.3  The  legates,  indeed,  were  blamed  for  allowing 
any  discussion  on  so  dangerous  a  topic,  since  if  priests  were 


1  Lettere  del  Nunzio  Visconti  (Ibid. 
III.  453). 

2  Disputat.  Joann.  de  Ludegna 
(Harduin.  X.  359).  The  learned  doc- 
tor presents  his  argument  in  the  form 
of   a  colloquy  between  himself   and 


which  he  is  made  to  declare  that  he 
is  endeavoring  to  find  arguments  with 
which  to  defend  himself  and  his  apos- 
tate strumpets. 

3  Non  e  da  savio  medico  guarir  un 
male   con    causarne    un    peggiore.- 


Calvin,  and  its  spirit  may  be  gathered  j  Sarpi,  Lib.  vn.  (Opere,  II.  280,  Helin- 
from   the   first   speech  of  Calvin,   in  !  stat,  1701). 


SACERDOTAL  MARRIAGE  REFUSED.     453 

permitted  to  marry,  their  affections  would  be  concentrated  on 
family  and  country,  in  place  of  the  church ;  their  subjection 
to  the  Holy  See  would  be  diminished,  the  whole  system  of 
the  hierarchy  destroyed,  and  the  pope  himself  would  eventu- 
ally become  a  simple  Bishop  of  Borne.'  If  such  consequences 
as  these  were  anticipated  by  the  able  men  who  represented 
the  papal  interests,  we  may  readily  believe  that  Pallavicini 
speaks  the  sense  of  the  managers  of  the  council  when  he 
remarks,  concerning  the  princes  who  exerted  themselves  in 
favor  of  sacerdotal  marriage,  that  they  seemed  to  consider 
that  the  council  had  been  convoked  for  the  purpose  not  of 
condemning  but  of  contenting  the  heretics,  whom  they  pro- 
posed to  convert  by  gratifying  in  place  of  repressing  their 
contumacious  desires.2  If  this  be  so,  the  Protestants  were 
amply  justified  in  refusing  to  submit  their  cause  to  a  body  so 
different  in  its  objects  from  that  free  and  unbiased  oecumenic 
council  to  which  they  had  so  often  appealed  from  their  per- 
secutors. 

It  was  not,  however,  until  the  11th  of  November  that  the 
canons  on  matrimony  were  finally  adopted  and  formally  pub- 
lished. Of  these  there  are  two  relating  to  our  subject.  The 
first  one  pronounced  the  dread  anathema  on  all  who  should 
dare  to  assert  that  clerks  in  holy  orders,  monks  or  nuns  could 
contract  marriage,  or  that  such  a  marriage  was  valid,  and  it 
added  that  Grod  would  not  deny  the  gift  of  chastity  to  those 
who  rightly  sought  it,  nor  would  He  expose  us  to  temptation 
beyond  our  strength.  The  other  similarly  anathematized  all 
who  dared  to  assert  that  the  married  state  was  more  worthy 
than  virginity,  or  that  it  was  not  better  to  live  in  celibacy 
than  married.3 


1  Sarpi  (loc.  cit.). 

2  Avvisandosi     tutti     costoro    cli'l 
Concilio  fosse  adunato,  non  per  con- 


Can,  ix.  Si  quis  dixerit  clericos  in 
sacris  ordinibus  constitutos,  vel  regu- 
lares  castitatem  solemniter  professos, 
posse   matrimonium  contrahere,  con- 


dannaremaperoontentaregheretici;     f  yalid  ^    ob_ 

e  che  la  converzione  di  questi  potesse  stante  £  ecclesia5tica  ve\  voto .  et 
aversi  col  saziar  que'  loro  contumaci  oppositai£  nihil  aliud  esse  quam  dam- 
appetiti,  che  piuttosto  si  convenivan      *r  -i 

PF:       '  £  ,,      •  •    •     T  u  nare  matrimonium;  posseque    oinnes 

repnmere. — Pallavicini     Lib.     xvn.  '         ,     ,  .  .         .  . 

„   A  i  contrahere  matrimonium,  qui  non  sen- 

tiunt  se  castitatis,  etiamsi  earn  vove- 


.  4. 


3  Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  xx:v.     De  ,  rint,  habere  donum  ;    anathema  sit; 
Sacrament.  Matrimon.  i  quuni  Deus  id  recte   petentibus  non 


454 


THE   COUNCIL   OF   TRENT 


Thus  the  church,  in  endeavoring  to  meet  the  novel  exigen- 
cies caused  by  the  progress  and  enlightenment  of  mankind, 
in  place  of  making  the  concessions  demanded  by  almost  all 
beyond  the  narrow  pale  of  the  papal  court,  devoted  its  ener- 
gies to  the  miserable  task  of  separating  itself  as  widely  as 
possible  from  those  who  had  left  it.  Its  rulers  seemed  to 
imagine  that  their  only  hope  of  safety  lay  in  intrenching 
themselves  behind  the  exaggerations  of  those  particular 
points  of  policy  which  had  afforded  to  their  adversaries  the 
fairest  chances  of  attack.  The  faithful  throughout  Germany 
might  suffer  from  the  absence  of  the  ministers  of  Christ,  or 
might  endure  yet  more  from  the  unrestrained  passions  of  the 
wolves  in  sheep's  clothing  let  loose  among  their  wives  and 
daughters,  but  the  church  militant  in  this  conjuncture  dreaded 
even  more  to  lose  the  aid  of  that  monastic  army  which,  in 
theory  at  least,  had  no  earthly  object  but  the  service  of  St. 
Peter;  it  selfishly  feared  that  the  parish  priest  who  might 
legitimately  see  his  fireside  surrounded  by  a  happy  group  of 
wife  and  children  would  lose  the  devotion  which  a  man  with- 
out ties  should  entertain  for  the  prosperity  and  glory  of  the 
ecclesiastical  establishment ;  and  perhaps,  more  than  all,  it 
saw  with  terror  avaricious  princes  eager  for  the  secularization 
of  that  immense  property  to  which  it  owed  so  large  a  portion 
of  the  splendor  which  dazzled  mankind,  of  the  influence 
which  rendered  it  powerful,  and  of  the  luxury  which  made 
its  high  places  attractive  to  the  ambitious  and  talented  men 
who  controlled  its  destiny.  To  put  an  end,  therefore,  at  once 
and  forever,  to  the  mutterings  of  dissatisfaction  among  those 
who  compared  the  calm  and  virtuous  life  of  the  Protestant 
pastors  with  the  reckless  self-indulgence  of  the  ministers  of 
the  old  religion,  it  was  resolved  to  place  the  canon  of  celi- 
bacy in  a  position  where  none  of  the  orthodox  should  dare  to 
attack  it,  and  to  accomplish  this  the  simple  rule  of  discipline 
was  elevated  to  the  dignity  of  a  point  of  belief.  As  the 
church  had  already  been  forced,  in  defending  the  rule  from 


deneget,  nee   patiatur  nos   supra   id 
quod  possumus  tentari. 

Can.  x.  Si  quis  dixerit  statum  con- 
jugalem    anteponendum   esse    statui 


virginitatis  vel  ccelibatus,  et  non  esse 
melius  ac  beatius  manere  in  virgini- 
tate  aut  coelibatu,  quam  jungi  niatri- 
nionio,  anathema  sit. 


REFORMATORY   MEASURES   ADOPTED.  455 

the  assaults  of  the  reformers,  to  attribute  to  it  apostolic  ori- 
gin, we  may  not  perhaps  be  surprised  that  it  was  made  a  point 
of  doctrine,  but  we  cannot  easily  appreciate  the  reasons  that 
would  justify  the  anathema  launched  against  all  who  regarded 
the  marriage  of  those  in  holy  orders  as  binding.  The  disso- 
lution of  such  marriages,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  suggested 
until  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  the  decision  of  the 
council  thus  condemned  as  heretics  the  whole  body  of  the 
church  during  three-quarters  of  its  previous  existence. 

Although  the  doctrinal  canon  threw  the  responsibility  of 
priestly  unchastity  upon  God,  yet  as  the  council  had  so  per- 
emptorily refused  to  adopt  the  remedy  urged  by  the  princes 
of  the  empire,  it  did  not  hesitate  to  employ  human  means  to 
remove,  if  possible,  the  scandals  which  Grod  had  permitted  to 
afflict  the  church.  The  decree  of  reformation,  published  in 
December,  1563,  contained  provisions  intended  to  curb  the 
vice  which  the  Tridentine  fathers,  with  all  their  reliance  on 
Divine  power,  well  knew  to  be  ineradicable.  These  pro- 
visions, however,  were  little  more  than  a  repetition  of  what 
we  have  seen  enacted  in  every  century  since  Siricius.  Any 
ecclesiastic  guilty  of  keeping  a  concubine  or  suspected  woman 
was  admonished;  disregarding  this  first  warning,  he  was 
deprived  of  one-third  of  his  revenue ;  if  still  contumacious, 
suspension  from  functions  and  benefice  followed ;  and  a  per- 
sistence in  guilt  was  then  visited  with  irrevocable  depriva- 
tion. No  appeal  from  a  sentence  could  gain  exemption ; 
these  cases  were  removed  from  the  jurisdiction  of  inferior 
officials  and  confided  to  the  bishops,  who  were  enjoined  to  be 
prompt  and  severe  in  their  decisions ;  while  guilty  bishops 
were  liable  to  suspension  by  their  provincial  synods,  and,  if 
irreclaimable,  were  sent  to  Rome  for  punishment.  The  ille- 
gitimate children  of  priests  were  pronounced  incapable  of 
preferment.  Those  already  in  orders,  if  employed  in  their 
fathers'  parishes,  were  required,  under  pain  of  deprivation,  to 
exchange  their  positions  within  three  months  for  preferment 
elsewhere,  and  any  provision  made  by  a  clerical  parent  for 
the  benefit  of  his  children  was  pronounced  to  be  .a  fraud.1 


Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  xxv.     Decret.  de  Reformat,  cap.  14,  15. 


456  THE    COUNCIL    OF    TRENT. 

Such  were  the  regulations  which  the  last  general  council 
of  the  Catholic  church  considered  sufficient  to  relieve  the 
establishment  of  the  curse  which  had  hung  around  it  for  a 
thousand  years.  There  is  nothing  in  them  that  had  not  been 
tried  a  hundred  times  before,  with  what  success  the  foregoing 
pages  may  attest.  In  some  respects,  indeed,  they  were  not 
as  prompt  and  efficacious  as  the  decrees  which  Charles  V.  and 
his  bishops  had  promulgated  a  few  years  before,  and  which 
had  proved  so  lamentably  inefficient. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  anathema  so  decidedly  enun- 
ciated by  the  council  did  not  deter  the  Emperor  Ferdinand 
from  continuing  his  efforts  to  procure  for  his  subjects  the 
benefit  of  a  relaxation  of  the  canon.  The  decision  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  doctors  of  the  council  favoring  the  papal  power 
of  dispensation  suggested  the  mode  of  obtaining  it.  Although 
the  form  of  the  canons  had  been  adopted  on  the  7th  of  Au- 
gust, and  the  previous  proceedings  left  no  doubt  as  to  their 
authoritative  promulgation  in  full  session,  yet  on  the  26th  of 
August  the  nuncio  Visconti  writes  that  he  had  heard  from  his 
colleague  Delfino,  then  in  Vienna,  that  the  three  ecclesiastical 
electors  (Mainz,  Treves,  and  Cologne),  the  Archbishop  of 
Salzburg  and  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  had  held  a  conference,  in 
which  it  was  resolved  to  unite  with  the  emperor  in  an  appeal 
for  Bulls  permitting  the  marriage  of  the  clergy  and  the 
use  of  the  cup  by  the  laity.1  Early  in  September  the  empe- 
ror wrote  to  his  ambassadors,  stating  that  he  had  called 
together  at  Vienna  the  deputies  of  the  electors  and  princes  of 
the  empire,  where,  after  mature  deliberation,  it  had  been  de- 
termined to  ask  the  cup  and  clerical  marriage  of  the  pope  and 
not  of  the  council ;  that  a  protocol  had  already  been  drawn 
up,  which  accompanied  the  despatch,  but  as  it  was  a  matter 
not  yet  fully  settled,  he  desired  it  to  be  communicated  to  no 
one  but  the  Count  de  Luna,  the  ambassador  of  Philip  II.2 


1  Lett.  No.  lxix.  (Ed.  Amsterd.  |  dal  concilio  ma  dal  Papa :  sopra  die 
II.  299.)  This  and  the  concluding  s'era  distesa  l'abbozzo  d'un  istruzione, 
letters  are  not  in  Mansi's  edition.  !  la  quale  rnandava  loro,ma  ch'  essendo 

,  t,  .  ,     ,    .    ,  .         . .       -rT.  !  illo  di  cosa  non  ancora  fermata,  a  ni- 

2  Essersi  da  lui  chiamati  a  Vienna  ,  .  c       \  s      , 

rT,     .   ?    ,.     .  ..     .        ,  ,      .      i  una    la    communicassero    fuorche    al 
l  consierlieri  degh  eletton  e  de  pnn-  i  .     .       A.    T  D  „     .  .    .      T ., 

.  .      *5  -,.  •        conte    di    Luna. — Pallavicini,    Lib. 

cipi,  e  dopo  niaturo  discorso  aver  in-  -.^ 

clinato  a  richieder  l'uno  e  l'altro,  non  | 


APPLICATION   FOP*   PAPAL   DISPENSATION.      457 


It  was  not,  however,  until  after  the  conclusion  of  the  coun- 
cil, which  brought  its  weary  labors  to  an  end  on  the  4th  of 
December,  1563,  that  Ferdinand  presented  his  request  to 
Pius  IV.  In  this,  after  demanding,  in  the  name  of  the  princes 
of  the  empire,  the  communion  in  both  elements  for  the  laity, 
he  proceeds  to  argue  earnestly  for  the  other  concession.  Per- 
haps the  decided  opposition  of  the  council  to  the  principle  of 
sacerdotal  marriage  had  produced  an  influence  upon  him; 
perhaps  he  had  found  himself  obliged  to  yield  some  of  his 
own  views  in  order  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the  Teutonic 
hierarchy;  be  this  as  it  may,  his  demands  were  greatly 
abated.  In  place  of  asking,  as  before,  the  privilege  for  the 
clergy  at  large,  he  now  reduced  his  entreaties  to  the  simple 
point  of  allowing  such  Catholic  priests  as  had  entered  into 
matrimony  to  retain  their  wives  and  perform  their  functions, 
which  he  assured  the  pope  was  absolutely  essential  to  the 
preservation  of  the  fragments  of  the  church  still  doing  battle 
with  the  prevailing  heresies  throughout  Germany.1     He  like- 


1  Quod  sanctitati  vestrae  maximum 
quoque  momentum  adfert,  tarn  ad 
conservandas  in  Germania  ac  regnis 
et  dominiis  nostris  saltern  exiguas 
hasce  religionia  Catholicae  reliquias, 
quam  ad  cohibendas  et  extirpandas 
hsereses  et  earum  auctores,  ebuccina- 
tores  et  propugnatores,  si  non  solum 
modum  et  rationem  aliquam  invenerit 
qua  sacerdotes  qui  assertis  suis  con- 
jugiis  seipsos  ab  ecclesia  separarunt, 
eccles^se  possint  reconciliari,  recentis 
utcunque  in  contubernio  suo  assertis 
illis  uxoribus.—  Goldast.  II.  380. 

It  is  observable  from  tbis  tbat  many 
priests  left  tbe  church  and  married 
without  formally  embracing  the  Lu- 
theran faith,  and  a  return  of  these 
was  anticipated  from  a  relaxation  of 
the  canons.  Others,  as  may  be  ga- 
thered from  various  references  above, 
married  and  still  performed  their 
regular  duties.  Of  these  some  no 
doubt  acted  in  virtue  of  dispensations 
granted  by  the  nuncios  of  Paul  III  , 
after  tbe  promulgation  of  the  Interim, 
but  many  did  so  in  utter  contempt  of 
discipline.  An  illustrative  example 
of  the  latter  class  may  be  found  in  tbe 
well-known    Stanislas    Orzechowski, 


whose  marriage,  notwithstanding  his 
high  character  for  piety  and  learning, 
shows  the  laxity  of  opinion  which 
prevailed  on  the  subject.  As  Canon 
of  Premislaw  in  Poland,  his  marriage 
naturally  gave  great  offence  to  his 
colleagues.  Somewhat  contaminated 
with  the  new  ideas  by  a  residence  at 
Wittenberg,  he  sturdily  refused  to 
give  up  either  his  wife  or  his  position, 
and  alleged  in  his  defence  a  dispensa- 
tion from  a  national  council.  When, 
in  1556,  the  legate  Lippomani  held  a 
synod  at  Lovictz,  he  called  to  account 
those  who  had  connived  at  so  great  an 
irregularity.  They  denied  granting 
the  dispensation,  saying  that  they 
had  only  suspended  the  censures 
until  the  pleasure  of  the  pope  should 
be  known ;  but  at  the  same  time 
many  prelates  used  all  their  influence 
with  Lippomani  to  obtain  one.  Lip- 
pomani declared  that  he  had  no  power 
to  grant  it,  nor  would  he  do  so  if  he 
could,  seeing  that  Orzechowski  de- 
fended himself  on  heretical  grounds. 
(Concil.  Lovitiens. — Labbei  et  Coleti 
Supp.  T.  V.  p.  702.)  In  1561  Orze- 
chowski complained  to  the  synod  of 
Warsaw  of  the  persecutions  to  which 


458 


THE    COUNCIL   OF    TRENT. 


wise  asked  that  in  such  places  as  could  not  obtain  a  suffi- 
ciency of  pastors,  the  bishops  should  be  empowered  to  ordain 
laymen  of  approved  piety,  learning,  and  fitness;  and  this 
would  seem  necessarily  to  carry  with  it  the  ordination  of 
married  men,  since,  if  the  laymen  indicated  were  celibates, 
there  could  have  been  nothing  to  prevent  their  entering  the 
church,  and  performing  their  duties  without  a  special  papal 
dispensation. 

Although  this  appeal  produced  no  result,  Ferdinand  was 
not  deterred  by  continued  rebuffs  from  prosecuting  the 
attempt,  and  his  unwearied  perseverance  may  safely  be  taken 
as  the  measure  of  his  estimate  of  its  importance.  George 
Wicelius  had  thrown  aside  the  monastic  gown  in  1531  to 
embrace  the  errors  of  Lutheranism,  but  had  returned  to  the 
old  religion.  His  learning  and  piety  earned  for  him  a  de- 
served reputation,  and  elevated  him  to  the  position  of  impe- 
rial councillor,  where  his  talents  were  devoted  to  the  endless 
task  of  bringing  about  a  reconciliation  between  the  churches. 
George  Cassander,  equally  eminent,  had  never  incurred  the 
imputation  of  apostasy,  but  had  labored  with  tireless  industry 
to  convert  his  erring  brethren  from  heresy  to  the  true  faith. 
Men  like  these  might  perhaps  be  heard  when  the  voice  of 
princes  and  prelates,  actuated  by  motives  of  personal  advan- 
tage, met  a  deaf  ear ;  and  Ferdinand  applied  to  them  for  dis- 
quisitions on  the  subject.  Before  their  labors  were  con- 
cluded the  monarch  was  dead  (July  25,  1564),  but  his  son 
Maximilian  II.  inherited  his  father's  ideas,  and  gladly  made 
use  of  the  opinions  which  the  learned  Catholic  doctors  had 
no  hesitation  in  expressing. 

Both  took  strong  ground  against  celibacy.     Cassander  de- 


lie  was  exposed  on  account  of  his 
wife,  and  lie  petitioned  both  the  pope 
and  the  council  of  Trent  for  a  dispen- 
sation. While  the  Tridentine  fathers 
refused  it,  some  authors  assert  that  it 
was  granted  by  Pius  IV.  to  him  as  an 
exceptional  case  "tibi  soli  Orichovio," 
but  careful  investigation  has  failed  to 
discover  the  Bull,  and,  according  to 
Zaccaria,  the  pope  merely  sent  secret 
orders  to  his  legate  Commendone  not 
to  allow  Orzechowski  to  be  molested, 


but  at  the  same  time  to  give  no  pub- 
licity to  an  act  of  tolerance  in  contra- 
vention of  the  canons  of  the  council 
of  Trent  (Gregoire,  Hist,  du  Mariage 
des  Pretres  en  France,  pp.  51-55). 

The  history  of  Orzechowski,  with 
probably  a  less  fortunate  result,  is  no 
doubt  that  of  innumerable  others, 
whose  obscurity  has  prevented  their 
sufferings  from  being  known  beyond 
their  own  narrow  circle. 


CASSANDER    AND    WICELIUS. 


459 


plored  the  terrible  and  abominable  scandals  which  the 
untimely  enforcement  of  the  rule  caused  throughout  the 
church,  and  he  urged  that  the  reasons  which  had  led  to  its 
introduction  not  only  existed  no  longer,  but  had  even  become 
arguments  for  its  abrogation.  He  declared  it  to  be  the  source 
of  numerous  evils,  chief  among  which  was  promiscuous  and 
unbridled  licentiousness,  and  he  added  that  the  already  scanty 
ranks  of  the  priesthood  were  deprived  of  the  accessions  which 
were  so  necessary,  since  men  of  a  religious  turn  of  mind  were 
prevented  from  taking  orders  by  the  universal  wickedness 
which  prevailed  under  the  excuse  of  celibacy,  while  pious 
parents  kept  their  sons  from  entering  the  church  for  fear  of 
debauching  their  morals.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who 
sought  a  life  of  ease  and  license  were  attracted  to  the  holy 
calling  which  they  disgraced.  He  was  even  willing  to  permit 
marriage  in  orders,  arguing  that  it  was  only  a  question  of 
canon  law,  in  which  faith  and  doctrine  were  not  involved.1 
Wicelius  was  equally  severe  in  his  denunciations  of  the  cleri- 
cal licentiousness  attributable  to  the  rule  of  celibacy,  and 
concluded  his  tract  by  attacking  the  supineness,  blindness, 
and  perversity  of  the  prelates  who  suffered  such  foulness  to 
exist  everywhere  among  the  priesthood,  in  contempt  of  Christ, 
and  to  the  burdening  of  their  consciences.2 

It  was  already  evident  that  both  the  great  objects  for 
which  the  council  of  Trent  had  been  assembled  were  failures; 
that  it  would  effect  as  little  for  the  purification  of  the  church 
as  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  heretics.     Maximilian  proba- 


1  Quare  minis  rigida  et  intempes- 
tiva  liujus  constitutionis  exactione, 
gravissima  et  abominanda  in  ecclesia 
scandala  existisse  videmus.  Nam 
caussae  illse  quibus  maiores  ad  consti- 
tutionein  hanc  faciendam  inductos  esse 
dixiinus,  non  solum  bodie  cessarunt, 
sed  etiam  in  contrarium  sunt  conver- 
se. .  .  .  Sunt  igitur  liujus  constitu- 
tionis relaxandse  graves  caussse,  pri- 
mum  quod  ea  manifeste  multorum 
malorum  et  incommodorum,  prseser- 
tim  qua?  vagam  et  effrenatain  libidi- 
nem  sequuntur,  occasionem  prsebeat. 
....  Tertiam  caussam  et  quidem 
prsecipuam  adfert  praesens  ecclesise 
status,  et  idoneorum  ministrorum  in- 


opia.  Plerique  enim  homines  docti 
et  pii  ad  continentiae  observationem 
adstringere  se  nolunt,  quum  et  in- 
firmitatis  suae  rationem  habeant  et 
exemplis  turpitudinum  et  scelerum, 
quae  praetextu  coelibatus  passim  in 
oculos  et  aures  incurrunt,  moveantur. 
Quo  fit  ut  paucissimi  adolescentes 
pietatis  indole  prsediti  ad  theologian 
studium  se  adjuugant,  aut  a  piis  pa- 
rentibus  ad  hoc  studium  applicentur. 
— GK  Cassandri  Consult,  xxm. 

2  Wicelii  Via  Regia. — Both  these 
tracts,  as  far  as  they  relate  to  celi- 
bacy, are  given  in  the  appendix  to 
Henke's  edition  of  Calixtus. 


460  THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT. 

bly  felt  that  under  these  circumstances  no  one  could  deny 
the  necessity  of  such  changes  as  would  at  least  afford  a 
chance  of  the  reformation  that  could  no  longer  be  expected 
of  the  Tridentine  canons;  and  in  a  negotiation  with  the 
Bishop  of  Yintimiglia,  papal  nuncio  at  his  court,  he  lost 
no  time  in  renewing,  with  increased  energy,  the  effort  to 
obtain  the  recognition  of  married  priests.  After  the  de- 
parture of  the  nuncio,  he  addressed,  in  November,  1564,  a 
most  pressing  demand  to  Pius  IV.,  in  which  he  declared  that 
the  matter  brooked  no  further  delay ;  that  throughout  Ger- 
many, and  especially  in  his  dominions,  there  was  the  greatest 
need  of  proper  ministers  and  pastors ;  that  there  was  no  other 
measure  which  would  retain  them  in  the  Catholic  church, 
from  which,  day  by  day,  they  were  withdrawing,  principally 
from  this  cause.  He  assured  the  Holy  Father  that  the  danger 
was  constantly  increasing,  and  that  he  feared  a  further  delay 
would  render  even  this  remedy  powerless  to  prevent  the  total 
destruction  of  the  old  religion.  If  only  this  were  granted  to 
the  clergy,  even  as  the  cup  had  been  communicated  to  the 
laity,  he  hoped  for  an  immediate  improvement.  The  bishops 
could  then  exercise  their  authority  over  those  who  at  present 
were  beyond  their  control,  as  unrecognized  by  the  church; 
and  so  thoroughly  was  this  lawless  condition  of  affairs  under- 
stood that  a  refuge  was  sought  in  his  provinces  by  those  dis- 
reputable pastors  who  were  banished  from  the  Lutheran 
states  on  account  of  their  disorderly  lives.1 

Ferdinand  and  Maximilian  were  actuated  in  these  perse- 
vering efforts  not  merely  by  the  desire  of  gratifying  the 
wishes  of  their  people,  or  of  remedying  the  depravity  of  the 
ecclesiastical  body.  It  had  been  a  favorite  project  with  the 
father,  warmly  adopted  by  the  son,  to  heal  the  differences  be- 
tween the  two  religions,  and  to  restore  to  the  church  its 
ancient  and  prosperous  unity.  In  their  opinion,  and  in  that 
of  many  eminent  men,  the  main  obstacle  to  this  was  the  ques- 
tion of  celibacy.  It  was  evidently  hopeless  to  expect  this 
sacrifice  of  the  Lutheran  pastors,  while  numerous  members  of 
the  Catholic  church  regarded  the  change  as  essential  to  the 


Goldast.  II.  381. 


Maximilian's  request  refused.       461 

purification  of  their  own  establishment.  The  only  mode  of 
effecting  so  desirable  a  reconciliation  was  therefore  to  per- 
suade the  pope  to  exercise  the  power  of  dispensation  which 
the  council  of  Trent  had  admitted  to  be  inherent  in  his  high 
office.  The  spirit  of  the  papal  court,  however,  was  that 
which  Pallavicini  attributes  to  the  council — that  the  heretics 
were  to  be  cut  off,  and  not  to  be  cajoled  into  returning. 
Pius  IV.  himself  was  not  personally  averse  to  the  plan  so 
persistently  urged  upon  him,  but  those  around  him  saw 
greater  dangers  in  concession  than  in  refusal.  De  Thou, 
indeed,  sa}rs  that  he  was  inclined  to  grant  the  privilege  for 
the  territories  of  Maximilian,  but  that  Philip  II.,  at  the  insti- 
gation of  Cardinal  Pacheco,  fearing  an  example  so  dangerous 
to  his  turbulent  and  excitable  subjects  in  the  Netherlands, 
opposed  it  strenuously,  and  sent  Don  Pedro  d'Avila  to  Eome, 
who  persuaded  the  pope  to  elude  the  demand,  by  keeping 
matters  in  suspense,  and  by  holding  out  prospects  of  accom- 
modation destined  never  to  be  accomplished.1 

This  is  probably  not  strictly  correct.  Maximilian's  de- 
mand had  perhaps  been  rendered  more  pressing  than  respect- 
ful by  the  necessity  of  conciliating  his  people  in  view  of  the 
war  with  John  of  Transylvania  and  the  Turks.  Its  tone  was 
not  relished  at  Eome,  nor  could  the  papacy  be  expected  to 
listen  with  as  much  patience  to  remonstrances  from  a  prince 
who  had  just  grasped  the  reins  of  power  as  it  had  to  those  of 
the  mature  and  experienced  Ferdinand.  The  response  to 
Maximilian  was  therefore  of  the  sharpest.  Cardinal  Com- 
mendone  was  sent  to  warn  him  that  any  interference  with  the 
interests  of  religion  would  be  visited  with  the  severest  penal- 
ties ;  in  fact,  he  was  threatened  with  deprivation  of  the  im- 
perial title,  and  a  convocation  of  the  Catholic  princes  for  the 
purpose  of  electing  a  successor.2 


1  De  Thou,  Lib.  xxxvii. 

2  Struvii  Corp.  Hist.  German.  II.  1097. 


i-  I  J{  R  A  - 

\i  V  KKSITY    O 

CALIFORNIA. 


•%= 


XXVII. 
THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

The  abrogation  of  celibacy  in  England  was  a  process  of 
far  more  perplexity  and  intricacy  than  in  any  other  country 
which  adopted  the  Eeformation.  Perhaps  this  may  be  ex- 
plained by  the  temperament  of  the  race,  whose  fierce  spirit 
of  independence  made  them  quick  to  feel  and  impatient  to 
suffer  the  manifold  evils  of  the  sacerdotal  system,  while  their 
reverential  conservatism  rendered  them  less  disposed  to  adopt 
a  radical  cure  than  their  Continental  neighbors. 

In  no  country  of  Europe  had  the  pretensions  of  the  papal 
power  been  so  resolutely  set  aside.  In  no  country  had  eccle- 
siastical abuses  been  more  earnestly  attacked  or  more  per- 
sistently held  up  for  popular  odium,  and  the  applause  which 
greeted  all  who  boldly  denounced  the  shortcomings  of  priest 
and  prelate  shows  how  deeply  the  people  felt  the  evils  to 
which  they  were  exposed.  Kobert  Langlande,  the  monk  of 
Malvern,  was  no  heretic,  yet  he  could  dare  to  assert — 

11  Right  so  out  of  holi  chirohe,  Somonours  and  liir  lemmannes  ; 

Alle  yveles  springeth,  That  that  with  gile  was  geten, 

There  inparfit  preesthode  is,  Ungraciousliche  is  despended ; 

Prechours  and  techeris.  So  harlotes  and  hores 

Arn  holpe  with  swiche  goodes, 

And  prechours  after  silver,  And  Goddes  folk,  for  defaute  thereof, 

Executours  and  sodenes,  For-faren  and  spillen."1 

And  he  boldly  prophesied  their  destruction — 

"  Right  so,  ye  clerkes,  Leveth  it  wel  ye  bisshopes 

For  youre  coveitise,  er  longe,  The  lordshipe  of  your  londes 

Shal  thei  demen  dos  ecclesice,  For  evere  shul  ye  lese, 

And  youre  pride  depose.  And  lyven  as  levitici,  etc."2 

But  while  the  people  greeted  these  assaults  with  the  keenest 
pleasure,  they  were  attached  to  the  old  observances,  and  were 
in  no  haste  to  see  the  predictions  of  the  poet  fulfilled.  A 
little  sharp  persecution  was  sufficient  to  suppress  all  outward 


1   Vision     of     Piers     Ploughman,  i      %  Ibid.,  p.  325. 
Wright's  ed.,  pp.  300,  303. 


COLET    AND    MORE.  463 

show  of  Lollardism,  and  there  was  no  chance  in  England  for 
the  fierce  revolutionary  enthusiasm  of  the  Taborites. 

As  the  sixteenth  century  opened,  John  Colet  did  good  work 
in  disturbing  the  stagnation  of  the  schools  by  his  contempt 
for  the  petrified  theological  science  of  the  schoolmen.  He 
endeavored  to  revert  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  sole  source  of 
religious  belief,  while  he  was  unsparing  in  his  denunciations 
of  the  corruptions  which  were  as  rife  in  the  English  church  as 
we  have  seen  them  elsewhere.  Yet  Colet  carefully  kept  within 
the  pale  of  orthodoxy,  and  seems  never  to  have  entertained 
the  idea  that  the  evils  which  he  deplored  were  to  be  attacked 
save  by  a  renewal  of  the  fruitless  iteration  of  obsolete  canons.1 
Perhaps,  however,  his  friend  and  disciple,  Sir  Thomas  More, 
is  the  best  example  of  this  frame  of  mind  in  England's  wor- 
thiest men,  the  besetting  weakness  of  which  made  the  Angli- 
can reformation  a  struggle  whose  vicissitudes  can  scarce  be 
said  to  have  even  yet  reached  their  final  development. 

More  appreciated  thoroughly  the  short- comings  of  the  church, 
and  permitted  his  wit  to  satirize  its  vices  with  a  freedom  which 
showed  the  scantiest  respect  for  the  sanctity  claimed  by  its 
hierarchy.2  Yet  when  Luther  came  with  his  heresies  to  sweep 
away  all  abuses,  More's  gentle  and  tender  spirit  was  roused 
to  a  vulgarity  of  vituperation  which  earned  for  him  a  distin- 
guished place  among  the  foul-mouthed  polemics  of  the  time, 
and  which  is  absolutely  unfit  for  translation.3  As  regards 
ascetic  observances  his  views  are  manifested  in  his  arguing 
that  by  the  recent  marriages  of  the  Saxon  reformers  God 
had  proved  his  signal  displeasure,  for  in  the  old  law  true 


1  Seebohm's   Oxford    Reformers   of  i      3   Responsio  ad  Lutherum,  passim  : 
1498,  p.  170.     London, 1867.  la  single  specimen  will  suffice — "  fu- 

riosum    fraterculum    et    latrinarium 


2  Thus,  in  his  Epigrams,  he  ridi- 
cules the  bishops  as  a  class  : — 

"Tarn  male  cantasti  possis  ut  episcopus  esse, 
Tam  bene  legisti,  ut  non  tamen  esse  queas. 

Non  satis  esse  putet,  si  quis  vitabit  utrumvis, 
Sed  fieri  si  vis  prsesul,  utrumque  cave." 

T.  Mori  Opp.,  p.  249.     Franco- 
furti,  1689. 
And  he  addresses  a  parish  priest :  — 

"Quid  faciant  fugiantve  tui,  quo  cernere  pos- 
sint, 
Vita  potest  claro  pro  speculo  esse  tua. 
Tantum  opus  admouitu  est,  ut  te  intueautur, 
et  ut  tu 
Quae  facis,  haec  fugiant:  quae  fugis,  haec  fa- 
ciant." Ibid.,  p.  247. 


nebulonem  cum  suis  furiis  et  furori- 
bus,  cum  suis  merdis  et  stercoribus 
cacantem  cacatumque  relinquere." 

Luther  was  himself  a  master  in 
theological  abuse,  but  More's  admiring 
biographer,  Stapleton,  boasts  that  the 
German  was  appalled  at  the  superior 
vigor  of  the  Englishman,  and  for  the 
first  time  in  his  life  he  declined  fur- 
ther controversy — "  magis  mutus  fac- 
tus  est  quam  piscis."  (Stapletoni 
Vit.  T.  Mori,  cap.  iv.) 


464 


THE    ANGLICAN    CHURCH. 


priests  could  be  joined  only  to  the  chastest  virgins,  while 
God  permitted  these  false  pastors  to  take  to  wife  none  but 
public  strumpets.1  If  he  accused  Luther  of  sweeping  away 
the  venerable  traditions  of  man  and  of  God,2  he  showed  how 
conscientious  was  this  rigid  conservatism  when  he  laid  his 
head  upon  the  block  in  testimony  for  the  principal  creation 
and  bulwark  of  tradition — the  papal  supremacy. 

A  community  thus  halting  between  an  acute  perception  of 
existing  evils  and  a  resolute  determination  not  to  remove 
them  was  exactly  in  the  temper  to  render  the  great  movement 
of  the  sixteenth  century  as  disastrous  to  themselves  as  pos- 
sible. How  to  meet  the  inevitable  under  such  conditions  was 
a  problem  which  well  might  tax  the  acutest  intellect,  and 
Wolsey,  whose  fate  it  was  to  undertake  the  task,  seems  to 
have  been  inspired  with  more  than  his  customary  audacious 
ingenuity  in  seeking  the  solution. 

Wolsey,  in  1518,  had  attempted  a  systematic  reformation  in 
his  diocese  of  York,  and  had  revived  the  ancient  canons  punish- 
ing concubinage  among  his  priesthood.3  The  results  probably 
showed  him  the  utter  inefficiency  of  the  worn-out  weapons  of 
discipline.  Yet  he  was  too  shrewd  a  statesman  not  to  recog- 
nize the  necessities  of  the  situation;  and,  in  taking  the  initia- 
tive, he  commenced  by  quietly  and  indirectly  attacking  the 
monastic  orders.  As  a  munificent  patron  of  letters,  it  was 
natural  that  he  should  emulate  Merton  and  Wykeham  in 
founding  a  college  at  Oxford;  and  "Cardinal's  College,"  now 
Christ  Church,  became  the  lever  with  which  to  topple  over 
the  vast  monastic  system  of  England. 

The  development  of  the  plan  was  characteristically  in- 
sidious. By  a  Bull  of  April  3d,  1524  (confirmed  by  Henry, 
May  10th),  Clement  YII.  authorized  him  to  suppress  the 
priory  of  St.  Frediswood  at  Oxford,  and  to  remove  the  monks 
for  the  purpose  of  converting  it  into  a  "  Collegium  Clericorum 
Seculorum."4  This  was  followed  by  a  Bull,  dated  August 
21st  of  the  same  year,  empowering  him  as  legate  to  make 


1  Respons.  ad  Lutherurn,  Perorat. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this 
was  written  after  his  friend  Erasmus 
had  publicly  given  in  his  adhesion  to 
marriage  as  the  only  remedy  for  sa- 
cerdotal corruption. 


2  Ibid.,  Lib.  i.  cap.  iv. 

3  Wilkins,  III.  669,  678. 

4  Rymer's  Foedera,  XIV.  15. 


WOLSBY  S   ASSAULT    ON   THE    MONASTERIES.      465 

inquisition  and  reformation  in  all  religions  houses  through- 
out the  kingdom,  to  incarcerate  and  punish  the  inmates,  and 
to  deprive  them  of  their  property  and  privileges,  all  grants 
or  charters  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.1  The  real  pur- 
port of  this  extraordinary  commission  is  shown  by  the  speedy 
issue  of  yet  another  Bull,  dated  September  11th,  conceding 
to  him  the  confiscation  of  monasteries  to  the  amount  of 
3000  ducats  annual  rental,  for  the  endowment  of  his  col- 
lege, and  alleging  as  a  reason  for  the  measure  that  many 
establishments  had  not  more  than  five  or  six  inmates.2 

The  affair  was  now  fully  in  train,  and  proceeded  with 
accelerating  momentum.  On  the  3d  of  July,  1525)  Henry 
confirmed  the  incorporation  of  the  college;  his  letters-patent 
of  May  1st,  1526,  enumerate  eighteen  monasteries  suppressed 
for  its  benefit,  while  other  letters  of  May  10th  grant  seventy  - 
one  churches  or  rectories  for  its  support,  and  yet  other  grants 
are  alluded  to  as  made  in  letters  which  have  not  been  pre- 
served.3 In  1528  these  were  followed  by  various  other  dona- 
tions of  religious  houses  and  manors;  and  during  the  same 
year  "Wolsey  founded  another  Cardinal's  College  at  Ipswich, 
which  became  a  fresh  source  of  absorption.4 

Had  Henry  VIII.  entertained  any  preconceived  design  of 
suppressing  the  religious  houses,  his  impatient  temper  would 
scarcely  have  allowed  him  to  remain  so  long  a  witness  of 
this  spoliation  without  taking  his  share,  and  carrying  the 
matter  out  with  his  accustomed  boldness  and  disregard  of 
consequences.  At  length,  however,  he  claimed  his  portion, 
and  procured  from  Clement  a  Bull  dated  November  2d,  1528, 
conceding  to  him,  for  the  benefit  of  the  old  foundations  of 
the  King's  Colleges  at  Cambridge  and  Windsor,  the  suppres- 
sion of  monasteries  to  the  annual  value  of  8000  ducats.5  This 
was  followed  by  another,  a  few  days  later,  empowering  "Wol- 


1  Wilkins,  III.  704.— Bishop  Burnet        2  Rymer,  XIV.   24.— Confirmed  by 
says  that  Wolsey's  design  in  procur-    the  king,  January  7,   1525   (Ibid.  p. 


ing    this   Bull  was    to    suppress   all    32). 

monasteries,   but   that    he   was  per-  j      3 

suaded    to    abandon  his  purpose  on 

account  of  opposition   and   dread  of;      4  Ibid.  pp.  240-44,  250-5S. 

;.— I 

f9). 

30 


monasteries,   but   that    he   was  per-  3  T,  .,  -,nn  n  -,_0  c 

j  j    *.        v     j        v  ibid.  pp.  155-o,  1/2-5. 

suaded    to    abandon  his  purpose  on 

account  of  opposition   and   dread  of 

scandals. — Hist.  Reform.  Vol.  I.  p.  20  -  T,  . ,  0^n  , 

(Ed.  1679).  Ibld'  PP-  27°-1' 


466  THE    ANGLICAN    CHURCH. 

sey  and  Campeggi,  co-legates  in  the  affair  of  Queen  Katha- 
rine's divorce,  to  unite  to  other  monasteries  all  those  contain- 
ing less  than  twelve  inmates — thus  suppressing  the  latter,  of 
which  the  number  was  very  large.1  Another  Bull  of  the 
same  date  (November  12th)  attacked  the  larger  abbeys, 
which  had  thus  far  escaped.  It  ordered  the  two  cardinals, 
under  request  from  the  king,  to  inquire  into  the  propriety  of 
suppressing  the  rich  monasteries  enjoying  over  10,000  ducats 
per  annum,  for  the  purpose  of  converting  them  into  bishop- 
rics, on  the  plea  that  the  seventeen  sees  of  the  kingdom  were 
insufficient  for  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  people.2  The  report 
of  the  cardinals  apparently  seconded  the  views  of  Henry,  for 
Clement  granted  to  them,  May  29th,  1529,  the  power  of 
creating  and  arranging  bishoprics  at  their  discretion,  and  of 
sacrificing  additional  monasteries  when  necessary  to  provide 
adequate  revenues.3  It  is  probable  that  the  monks  who  had 
been  unceremoniously  deprived  of  their  possessions  did  not 
in  all  cases  submit  without  resistance,  for  the  Bull  of  Novem- 
ber 12th,  1528,  suppressing  the  smaller  houses,  was  repeated 
August  31st,  1529,  with  the  suggestive  addition  of  authority 
to  call  in  the  assistance  of  the  secular  arm.4 

Wolsey  was  now  tottering  to  his  fall.  Process  against 
him  was  commenced  on  October  9th,  1529,  and  on  the  18th 
the  Great  Seal  was  delivered  to  More.  His  power,  however, 
had  lasted  long  enough  to  break  down  all  the  safeguards 
which  had  for  so  many  centuries  grown  around  the  sacred 
precincts  of  ecclesiastical  property ;  and  the  rich  foundations 
which  covered  so  large  a  portion  of  English  territory  lay 
defenceless  before  the  cupidity  of  a  despot,  who  rarely 
allowed  any  consideration,  human  or  divine,  to  interfere  with 
his  wishes,  whose  extravagance  rendered  him  eager  to  find 
new  sources  of  supply  for  an  exhausted  treasury,  and  whose 
temper  had  been  aroused  by  the  active  support  lent  by  the 
preaching  friars  to  the  party  of  Queen  Katharine  in  the  affair 
of  the  divorce.  Yet  it  is  creditable  to  Henry's  self-command 
that  the  blow  did  not  fall  sooner,  although  it  came  at  last. 


'  Rymer,  XIV.  272-3.  3  Ibid.  291-3. 

2  Ibid.  273-5.  *  Ibid.  345-6. 


SUPPRESSION    OF    THE    RELIGIOUS    HOUSES.      467 

It  is  not  my  province  to  enter  into  the  details  of  Henry's 
miserable  quarrel  with  Rome,  which,  except  in  its  results,  is 
from  every  point  of  view  one  of  the  most  humiliating  pages 
of  history.  The  year  1532  saw  the  proclamation  of  the  king 
commanding  the  support  of  his  subjects  in  the  impending 
rupture,  and  the  oaths  of  the  bishops  promising  to  receive  or 
publish  nothing  to  his  prejudice.  The  following  year  his 
long-protracted  divorce  from  Katharine  of  Arragon  was  con- 
summated ;  the  annates  were  withdrawn  from  the  pope,  and 
Henry  assumed  the  title  of  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  of 
England.1  In  1535  an  obedient  Parliament  confirmed  the 
acts  of  the  sovereign,  and  forbade  the  promulgation  of  any 
canons  by  synods  or  convocations  without  his  approval. 
The  power  of  the  pope  was  abolished  by  proclamation;  and 
Universities  and  prelates  rivalled  each  other  in  obsequiously 
transferring  to  Henry  the  reverence  due  to  Rome.2 

The  greater  portion  of  the  monasteries,  which  had  already 
experienced  a  foretaste  of  the  wrath  to  come,  hastened  to 
proclaim  their  adhesion  to  the  new  theological  autocracy, 
and  means  not  the  most  gentle  were  found  to  persuade  the  re- 
mainder,3 among  which  the  powerful  order  of  the  Franciscans 
was  conspicuous.  These  refused  the  oath  exacted  of  them,  caus- 
ing no  little  trouble,  and  affording  a  cover  for  the  intrigues  of 
that  large  body  of  the  clergy  who  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
innovations,  but  afraid  of  open  opposition.4  This  precipitated 
the  ruin  of  the  monastic  orders,  which  could  not,  under  any  cir 
cumstances,  have  been  long  delayed,  and  a  general  visitation 
was  considered  the  most  effective  means  of  encompassing 
their  destruction.  It  was  accordingly  ordered  in  1535,  and 
as  their  immorality  and  neglect  of  their  sacred  duties  had 


■  Wilkins,  III.  755-62.  3  Rymer,   XIV.   487-527.     The  se- 

*  Ibid.  770-82, 789.-Parliamentary  !  vf  e,st  measures  were  taken  to  enforce 
Hist,  of  England,  I.  525.  In  1532  ^edumce  1  he  Carthusians  of  the 
Henry  had  complained  to  his  Parlia-  J*"**  House  for  instance,  refused 
ment  that  the  clenry  were  but  half  to  acknowledge  the  King's  supremacy, 
subjects  to  him,  in  consequence  of  '  wherefore  the  prior  and  eleven  of  his 
their  oaths  to  the  pope,  and  he  de.  ^onks  were  executed  at  various  times 
sired   that  some    remedy   should   be  M?*™"1  «*•  27«»  of  April  and  4th  of 


found  for  this  state  of  things  (Ibid, 
p.  519). 


August,  1535.    (Suppression  of  Monas- 
teries, p.  40 — Camden  Soc.) 

*  Burnet,  I.  182. 


468 


THE   ANGLICAN   CHURCH. 


passed  almost  into  a  proverb,  there  was  not  much  difficulty 
in  accumulating  evidence  to  justify  the  measure.  The  visita- 
tion was  commanded  to  examine  into  the  foundation,  title, 
history,  condition  of  discipline,  and  number  and  character  of 
the  inmates  of  all  religious  houses;1  and,  as  might  have  been 
expected,  the  report  disclosed  a  state  of  affairs  which  called 
for  the  immediate  removal  of  so  foul  a  source  of  corruption 
and  scandal.  The  visitors  had  their  work  assigned  them  in 
advance,  and  they  performed  it  thoroughly;  but  we  cannot 
assume  that  the  horrors  which  they  described  were  the  crea- 
tion of  their  own  invention  to  gratify  the  wishes  and  advance 
the  purposes  of  their  master.2 


1  Wilkins,  III.  787. 

2  One  of  the  earliest  abbeys  visited 
was  that  of  Langdon.     Dr.  Leighton, 
the  visitor,  suddenly  breaking  open 
the  abbot's  door,  found  him  with  his 
concubine,  whose  male  dress  was  dis- 
covered in  a  coffer.     Leighton's   ac- 
count of  this  little  adventure,  "  scri- 
bullede  this  Satterday"  to  his  patron 
Cromwell,  is  full  of  humor,  showing 
how  thoroughly  he  enjoyed  his  suc- 
cess, and   how  fully  he  was  assured 
that  the  Secretary  would  be  gratified 
by  it.    (Suppression   of  Monasteries, 
p.  175.)—"  But  for  the  lewdness  of  the 
confessors  of  nunneries,  and  the  great 
corruption  of  that  state,  whole  houses 
being  found  almost    all  with   child  ; 
for  the  dissoluteness  of  abbots  and 
the  other  monks  and  friars,  not  only 
with   whores    but    married    women ; 
and   for  their    unnatural    lusts   and 
other  brutal  practices ;  these  are  not 
fit  to  be  spoken  of,  much  less  enlarged 
on,  in  a  work  of  this  nature.      The 
full  report  of  this  visitation  is  lost, 
yet  I  have  seen  an  extract  of  a  part 
of  it,   concerning   144    houses,   that 
contains  abominations  in  it  equal  to 
any  that  were  in  Sodom." — Burnet,  I. 
190-1. 

The  good  bishop  was  not  likely  to 
diminish  or  to  palliate  what  he  had 
read,  yet  we  may  readily  believe  the 
truth  of  his  assertion,  nor  can  it  be 
assumed  that  the  charges  were  manu- 
factured, like  the  accusations  against 
the  Templars,  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
citing odium.     The  monasteries  were 


not  likely  to  have  improved  in  mo- 
rality  since  Archbishop   Morton  de- 
scribed a  similar  condition  of  affairs 
some   half    century   earlier;    nor   is 
there   any  reason    to   imagine   them 
better  than  their  Continental  contem- 
poraries, whose   lapses   we   have  al- 
ready  seen  described   by  censors  of 
their  own  faith.     A  short  account  of 
"  The  Manner  of  Dissolving  the  Ab- 
beys," by  a  contemporary  (Suppres- 
sion of  Monasteries,  p.   112),  states 
the  result  of  the  visitation  in  terms 
even  stronger  than  those  of  Burnet ; 
and  descriptions  of  the  disorders  of 
special  houses   are  very  frequent  in 
the  private  letters  of  the  visitors  and 
commissioners    to    Cromwell     (Ibid. 
Nos..  xvii.,   xxi.,    xxiv.,   xlii.,  xlv., 
xlvii.,  xcviii.,   &c),  which   may  be 
the  more  readily  believed,  since  they 
also  report  favorably  of  many  abbeys 
as  well  governed,  and  of  the  utmost 
benefit  to  their  neighborhoods  through 
their  generous  hospitality  and  chari- 
ty.    It  should  be  added  that,  in  some 
districts  at  least,  the  morals  of  the 
laity  were  no  better  than  those  of  the 
clergy  (Ibid.  No.  cxx.  p.  243). 

Nicander  Nucius,  who  visited  Eng- 
land about  the  year  1545,  in  relating 
the  suppression  of  the  monastic  or- 
ders, gives  as  bad  an  account  of  their 
discipline  as  Burnet  (Travels,  pp.  68- 
71— Camden  Society,  1841).  He  is 
not,  of  course,  an  original  authority, 
but  as  an  impartial  observer  his 
statements  are  worthy  of  notice  as 
reflecting  the  opinions  of  society  at 
the  time. 


THE    BEGGARS      PETITION 


469 


A  portion  of  the  people  were  ready  and  eager  to  welcome 
the  secularization  of  the  religious  houses.  Their  views  and 
arguments  are  set  forth  with  more  force  than  elegance  in  the 
well-known  "  Beggars'  Petition,"  which  calculates  that,  be- 
sides the  tithes,  one-third  of  the  kingdom  was  ecclesiastical 
property,  and  that  these  vast  possessions  were  devoted  to  the 
support  of  a  body  of  men  who  found  their  sole  serious  occu- 
pation in  destroying  the  peace  of  families  and  corrupting  the 
virtue  of  women.  The  economical  injury  to  the  common- 
wealth, and  the  interference  with  the  royal  prerogative  of 
the  ecclesiastical  system,  were  argued  with  much  cogency, 
and  the  king  was  entreated  to  destroy  it  by  the  most  sum- 
mary methods.1  That  any  one  should  venture  to  publish  so 
violent  an  attack  upon  the  existing  church,  at  a  time  when 
punishment  so  prompt  followed  all  indiscretions  of  this 
nature,  renders  this  production  peculiarly  significant  both  as 
to  the  temper  of  the  educated  portion  of  the  people,  and  the 
presumed  intentions  of  the  king. 


!  As  published  in  the  Harleian  Mis- 
cellany, the  Beggars'  Petition  bears 
the  date  of  1538,  but  internal  evidence 
would  assign  it  to  a  time  anterior  to 
the  suppression  of  the  monasteries, 
and  Burnet  attributes  it  to  the  period 
under  consideration,  saying  that  it 
was  written  by  Simon  Fish,  of  Gray's 
Inn,  that  it  took  mightily  with  the 
public,  and  that  when  it  was  handed 
to  the  king  by  Ann  Boleyn,  "  he  lik'd 
it  well,  and  would  not  suffer  anything 
to  be  done  to  the  author"  (Hist.  Re- 
form. I.  160).  Froude,  indeed,  as- 
signs to  it  the  date  of  1528,  and  states 
that  Wolsey  issued  a  proclamation 
against  it.    (Hist.  Engl.  I.  90.) 

The  tone  of  that  which  was  thus 
equally  agreeable  to  the  court  and  to 
the  city,  may  be  judged  from  the  fol- 
lowing extracts,  which  are  by  no 
means  the  plainest  spoken  that  might 
be  selected. 

"  §  13.  Yea,  and  what  do  they 
more  ?  Truly,  nothing  but  apply 
themselves  by  all  the  sleights  they 
may  to  have  to  do  with  every  man's 
wife,  every  man's  daughter,  and  every 
man's  maid ;  that  cuckoldry  should 
reign  over  all  among  your  subjects  ; 
that  no  man  should  know  his   own 


]  child  ;  that  their  bastards  might  in- 
i  herit  the  possessions  of  every  man,  to 
:  put  the  right-begotten  children  clean 
beside  their  inheritance,  in  subver- 
|  sion  of  all  estates  and  godly  order. 

"  §  16.  Who  is  she  that  will  set 
her  hands  to  work  to  get  three-pence 
a  day,  and  may  have  at  least  twenty- 
pence  a  day  to  sleep  an  hour  with  a 
friar,  a  monk,  or  a  priest  ?  Who  is 
;  he  that  would  labour  for  a  groat  a  day, 
',  and  may  have  at  least  twelve-pence 
a  day  to  be  a  bawd  to  a  priest,  a 
monk,  or  a  friar  ? 

"  §  31.    Wherefore,  if    your   grace 
will  set  their  sturdy  loobies  abroad 
j  in  the  world,  to  get   them  wives   of 
,  their  own,    to   get  their   living  with 
1  their  labour,  in  the  sweat  of  their  faces, 
i  according   to    the    commandment  of 
God,  Gen.  iii.,  to  give  other  idle  peo- 
ple, by  their  example,  occasion  to  go 
|  to  labour;  tye  these  holy,  idle  thieves 
j  to  the  carts   to   be   whipped   naked 
■  about   every   market-town,  till   they 
will   fall   to   labour,  that   they  may, 
by   their    importunate    begging,   not 
take  away  the    alms    that  the  good 
Christian  people  would  give  unto  us 
sore,  impotent,  miserable  people  your 
!  bedemen." 


470 


THE   ANGLICAN   CHURCH 


The  visitation  produced  the  desired  effect.  In  1536,  after 
reading  the  report,  Parliament  passed  without  opposition  a 
bill  suppressing,  for  the  benefit  of  the  crown,  all  monasteries 
with  less  than  twelve  inmates  or  possessing  a  revenue  imder 
£200  per  annum.  Three  hundred  and  seventy-six  houses 
were  swept  away  by  this  act,  and  the  "Court  of  Augmenta- 
tions of  the  King's  Ee venue"  was  established  to  take  charge 
of  the  lands  and  goods  thus  summarily  escheated.  The  rents 
which  thus  fell  to  the  king  were  valued  at  £32,000  a  year, 
and  the  movable  property  at  £100,000,  while  the  commis- 
sioners were  popularly  supposed  to  have  been  "as  careful  to 
enrich  themselves  as  to  increase  the  king's  revenue."  Stokes- 
ley,  Bishop  of  London,  remarked,  concerning  the  transaction, 
that  "these  lesser  houses  were  as  thorns  soon  plucked  up, 
but  the  great  abbots  were  like  putrefied  old  oaks,  yet  they 
must  needs  follow,  and  so  would  others  do  in  Christendom 
before  many  years  were  passed."  But  Stokesley,  however 
true  a  prophet  in  the  general  scope  of  his  observation,  was 
mistaken  as  to  the  extreme  facility  of  eradicating  the  humble 
thorns.  The  country  was  not  as  easily  reconciled  to  the 
change  as  the  versatile,  more  intelligent,  and  less  reverent 
inhabitants  of  the  cities.  Henry,  unluckily,  had  not  abro- 
gated Purgatory  by  proclamation,  and  thousands  were  struck 
with  dread  as  to  the  future  prospects  of  themselves  and  their 
dearest  kindred,  when  there  should  be  few  to  offer  the  sacrifice 
of  the  mass  for  the  benefit  of  departed  souls.  The  traveller 
and  the  mendicant,  too,  missed  the  ever  open  door  and  the 
coarse  but  abundant  fare,  which  smoothed  the  path  of  the 
humble  wayfarer.  Discontent  spread  widely,  and  was  soon 
manifested  openly.  To  meet  this,  most  of  the  lands  were  sold 
at  a  very  moderate  price  to  the  neighboring  gentry,  under 
condition  of  exercising  free  hospitality,  to  supply  the  wants 
of  those  who  had  hitherto  been  dependent  on  conventual 
charity.1 


»  Burnet,  I.  193-4,  222-4 ;— Pari. 
Hist.  I.  526-7.  To  our  modern  no- 
tions, there  is  something  inexpressibly 
disgusting  in  the  openness  with  which 
bribes  were  tendered  to  Cromwell  by 
those  who  were  eager  to  obtain  grants 


of  abbey  lands  (Suppression  of  Monas- 
teries, passim).  On  the  other  hand, 
the  abbots  and  abbesses  who  feared 
for  their  houses  had  as  little  scruple 
in  offering  him  large  sums  for  his  pro- 
tection.    Thus  the  good  Bishop  Lati- 


THE   PILGRIMAGE    OF    GRACE 


471 


The  plan  was  only  partially  successful,  and  soon  another 
element  of  trouble  made  itself  apparent.  Of  the  monks  whose 
houses  were  suppressed,  those  who  desired  to  continue  a  mo- 
nastic life  were  transferred  to  the  larger  foundations,  while 
the  rest  took  "capacities,"1  under  promise  of  a  reasonable 
allowance  for  their  journey  home.  They  received  only  forty 
shillings  and  a  gown,  and  with  this  slender  provision  it  was 
estimated  that  about  ten  thousand  were  turned  adrift  upon 
the  world,  in  which  their  previous  life  had  incapacitated  them 
from  earning  a  support.  The  result  is  visible  in  the  act  for 
the  punishment  of  "sturdy  vagabonds  and  beggars,"  passed 
by  Parliament  in  this  same  year,  inflicting  a  graduated  scale 
of  penalties,  of  which  hanging  was  that  threatened  for  a  third 
offence.2 

This  was  a  dangerous  addition  to  society  when  discontent 
was  smouldering  and  ready  to  burst  into  flame.  The  result 
was  soon  apparent.  After  harvest-time  great  disturbitnces 
convulsed  the  kingdom.  A  rising,  reported  as  consisting  of 
twenty  thousand  men,  in  Lincolnshire,  was  put  down  by  the 
Duke  of  Suffolk  with  a  heavy  force  and  free  promises  of 
pardon.  In  the  North  matters  were  even  more  serious.  The 
clergy  there  were  less  tractable  than  their  southern  brethren, 
and  some  Injunctions  savoring  strongly  of  Protestantism 
aroused  their  susceptibilities  afresh.  Unwilling  to  submit 
without  a  struggle,  they  held  a  convocation,  in  which  they 
denied  the  royal  supremacy  and  proclaimed  their  obedience 
to  the  pope.  This  was  rank  rebellion,  especially  as  Paul  III., 
on  the  30th  of  August,  1535,  had  issued  his  Bull  of  excom- 


mer  renders  himself  the  intermediary 
(Dec.  16th,  1536)  of  an  offer  from  the 
Prior  of  Great  Malvern  of  500  marks 
to  the  king  and  200  to  Cromwell  to 
preserve  that  foundation ;  while  the 
Abbot  of  Peterboro'  tendered  the  enor- 
mous sum  of  2500  marks  to  the  king 
and  £300  to  Cromwell  (Ibid.  150, 179). 
The  liberal  disposition  of  the  latter 
seems  to  have  made  an  impression, 
for,  though  he  could  not  save  his  ab- 
bey, he  was  appointed  the  first  Bishop 
of  Peterboro' — a  see  erected  upon  the 
ruins  of  the  house. 

1  "  They  be  very  pore,  and  can  have 


lytyll  serves  withowtt  ther  capacytes. 
The  bischoyppys  and  curettes  be  very 
hard  to  them,  withowtt  they  have  ther 
capacytes." — The  Bishop  of  Dover  to 
Cromwell,  March  10th,  1538  (Suppres- 
sion of  Monasteries,  p.  193).  These 
"capacities"  empowered  them  to  per- 
form the  functions  of  secular  priests 
The  good  bishop  pleads  that  certain 
poor  monks  may  obtain  them  without 
paying  the  usual  fee. 

2  27  Henry  VIII.  c.  25,  renewed  by 
28  Hen.  VIII.  c.  6.— Parliament.  Hist. 
I.  574. 


472 


THE    ANGLICAN    CHURCH 


munication  against  Henry,  and  self-preservation  therefore  de- 
manded the  immediate  suppression  of  the  recalcitrants.  They 
would  hardly,  indeed,  have  ventured  on  assuming  a  position  of 
such  dangerous  opposition  without  the  assurance  of  popular 
support,  nor  were  their  expectations  or  labors  disappointed. 
The  "Pilgrimage  of  Grace,"  according  to  report,  soon  num- 
bered forty  thousand  men.  Although  Skipton  and  Scarboro' 
bravely  resisted  a  desperate  siege,  the  success  of  the  insurgents 
at  York,  Hull,  and  Pomfret  Castle  was  encouraging,  and 
risings  in  Lancashire,  Durham,  and  Westmoreland  gave  to 
the  insurrection  an  aspect  of  the  most  menacing  character. 
Good  fortune  and  skilful  strategy,  however,  saved  the  Duke 
of  Norfolk  and  his  little  army  from  defeat ;  the  winter  was 
rapidly  approaching,  and  at  length  a  proclamation  of  general 
amnesty,  issued  by  the  king  on  the  9th  of  December,  induced 
a  dispersion  of  the  rebels.  The  year  1537  saw  another  rising 
in  the  North,  but  this  time  it  only  numbered  eight  thousand 
men.  Eepulsed  at  Carlisle,  and  cut  to  pieces  by  Norfolk,  the 
insurgents  were  quickly  put  down,  and  other  disturbances  of 
minor  importance  were  even  more  readily  suppressed.1 

Strengthened  by  these  triumphs  over  the  disaffected,  Henry 
proceeded,  in  1537,  to  make  the  acknowledgment  of  papal  au- 
thority a  crime  liable  to  the  penalties  of  a  praemunire;2  and, 
as  resistance  was  no  longer  to  be  dreaded,  he  commenced  to 
take  possession  of  some  of  the  larger  houses.  These  did  not 
come  within  the  scope  of  the  act  of  Parliament,  and  therefore 
were  made  the  subject  of  special  transactions.  The  abbots 
resigned,  either  from  having  been  implicated  in  the  late 
insurrections,  or  feeling  that  their  evil  lives  would  not  bear 
investigation,  or  doubtless,  in  many  cases,  from  a  clear  per- 
ception of  the  doom  impending  in  the  near  future,  which 
rendered  it  prudent  to  make  the  best  terms  possible  while 
yet  there  was  time.  Thus,  in  these  cases,  the  monks  were 
generally  pensioned  with  eight  marks  a  year,  while  some  of 
the  abbots  secured  a  revenue  of  400  or  500  marks.3    In  an 


i  Burnet,  I.  227-34;  App.160.— Wil- 
kins,III.  784,  792,  812.— Rymer,  XIV. 
549. 

2  28  Henry  VIII.  c.  10.— Pari.  Hist. 
I.  533. 


3  Burnet,  I.  235-7.  These  pensions 
were  not  in  all  cases  secured  without 
difficulty,  even  after  promises  had  been 
made  and  agreements  entered  into. 
(Suppression  of  Monasteries,  p.  126.) 


DESTRUCTION    OF    THE    MONASTIC    SYSTEM.      473 

agreement  which  has  been  preserved,  the  monks  were  to 
receive  pensions  varying  from  535.  4c7.  to  £4  a  year,  accord- 
ing to  their  age.1  An  effectual  means  of  inducing  voluntary 
surrenders  was  by  stopping  their  source  of  support,  and  thus 
starving  them  out.  Richard,  Bishop  of  Dover,  one  of  the 
commissioners  in  Wales,  writes  to  Cromwell,  May  23d,  1538 : 
"I  thinke  before  the  yere  be  owt  ther  schall  be  yery  fewe 
howsis  abill  to  lyve,  but  schall  be  glade  to  giffe  up  their 
howseis  and  provide  for  them  selvys  otherwise,  for  their  thei 

*  schall  have  no  living."     In  anticipation  of  the  impending 
doom,  many  of  the  abbots  and  priors  had  sold  everything 

'that  was  salable,  from  lands  and  leases  down  to  spits  and 
kitchen  utensils,  leaving  their  houses  completely  denuded. 
The  letters  of  the  commissioners  are  full  of  complaints  re- 
specting this  sharp  practice,  and  of  their  efforts  to  trace  the 
property.  Another  mode  of  compelling  surrenders  was  by 
threatening  the  strict  enforcement  of  the  rules  of  the  order. 
Thus,  in  the  official  report  of  the  surrender  of  the  Austin 
friars  of  Gloucester,  we  find  the  alternative  given  them,  when 
"the  seyd  freeres  seyed  ...  as  the  worlde  ys  nowe  they  war 
not  abull  to  kepe  them  and  leffe  in  ther  howseys,  wherfore 
voluntary ly  they  gaffe  ther  howseys  into  the  vesytores  handes 
to  the  kynges  use.  The  vesytor  seyd  to  them,  'thynke  nott, 
nor  hereafter  reportt  nott,  that  ye  be  suppresseyd,  for  I  have 
noo  such  auctoryte  to  suppresse  yow,  but  only  to  reforme 
yow,  wherfor  yf  ye  woll  be  reform eyd,  accordeyng  to  good 
order,  ye  may  contynew  for  all  me.'  They  seyd  they  war 
nott  abull  to  contynew,"  whereupon  they  were  ejected.2 

In  the  year  1538  the  work  proceeded  with  increased  rapidity, 
no  less  than  158  surrenders  of  the  larger  houses  being  enrolled. 
Many  of  the  abbots  were  attainted  of  treason  and  executed, 
and  the  abbey  lands  forfeited.  Means  not  of  the  nicest  kind 
were  taken  to  increase  the  disrepute  of  the  monastic  orders, 
and  they  retaliated  in  the  same  way.  Thus,  the  Abbot  of 
Crossed-Friars,  in  London,  was  surprised  in  the  day  time  with 
a  woman  under  the  worst  possible  circumstances,  giving  rise 


1  Suppression  of  Monasteries,  p.  170. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  194,  203. 


474 


THE   ANGLICAN   CHURCH. 


to  a  lawsuit  more-curious  than  decent  ;x  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Abbess  of  Chepstow  accused  Dr.  London,  one  of 
the  visitors,  of  corrupting  her  nuns.2  Public  opinion,  how- 
ever, did  not  move  fast  enough  for  the  rapacity  of  those  in 
power,  and  strenuous  exertions  were  made  to  stimulate  it. 
All  the  foul  stories  that  could  be  found  or  invented  respecting 
the  abbeys  were  raked  together ;  but  these  proving  insufficient, 
the  impostures  concerning  relics  and  images  were  investigated 
with  great  success,  and  many  singular  exposures  were  made 
which  gave  the  king  fresh  warrant  for  his  arbitrary  measures, 
and  placed  the  religious  houses  in  a  more  defenceless  position 
than  ever.3 

Despite  all  this,  in  the  session  of  1539  all  the  twenty-eight 
parliamentary  abbots  had  their  writs,  and  no  less  than  twenty 
sat  in  the  House  of  Lords.4  Yet  the  influence  of  the  court 
and  the  progress  of  public  opinion  were  shown  in  an  act  which 
confirmed  the  suppressions  of  the  larger  houses  not  embraced 


1  A  letter  from  John  Bartelot  to 
Cromwell  shows  that  the  abbot  pur- 
chased secrecy  by  distributing  tbirty 
pounds  to  those  who  detected  him, 
and  promising  them  thirty  more. 
This  latter  sum  was  subsequently  re- 
duced to  six  pounds,  for  which  the 
holy  man  gave  his  note.  This  not 
being  paid  at  maturity,  he  was  sued, 
when  he  had  the  audacity  to  com- 
plain to  Cromwell,  and  to  threaten  to 
prosecute  the  intruders  for  robbery 
and  force  them  to  return  the  money 
paid.  Bartelot  relates  his  share  in 
the  somewhat  questionable  transac- 
tion with  great  naivete,  and  applies 
to  Cromwell  for  protection. — Suppres- 
sion of  Monasteries,  Letter  xxv. 

2  This  may  have  been  true,  for  Dr. 
London  was  one  of  the  miserable 
tools  who  are  the  fitting  representa- 
tives of  the  time.  His  zeal  in  sup- 
pressing the  monasteries  was  comple- 
mented with  equal  zeal  in  persecuting 
Protestants.  In  1543  he  made  him- 
self conspicuous,  in  conjunction  with 
Gardiner,  by  having  some  heretics 
burned  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Six  Articles.  His  eagerness  in  this 
good  work   led   him  to  commit  per- 


jury, on  conviction  of  which  he  was 
pilloried  and  thrust  into  the  Fleet, 
where  he  died. — Froude,  Hist.  Engl. 
IV.  295-6. 

In  fact,  Henry's  capricious  despot- 
ism rendered  it  almost  impossible 
that  he  could  be  served  by  men  of 
self-respect  and  honor. 

3  Burnet,  I.  238-43.— See  also 
Froude's  Hist.  Engl.  III.  2S5  et  seq. 
During  his  visitation  (Aug.  27th, 
1538),  the  Bishop  of  Dover  writes  to 
Cromwell,  "  I  have  Malkow's  ere  that 
Peter  stroke  of,  as  yt  ys  wrytyn,  and 
a  M.  as  trewe  as  that."  (Suppression 
of  Monasteries,  p.  212.)  In  a  report 
of  Dec.  28th,  1538,  Dr.  London  observes, 
with  dry  humor,  "  I  have  dyvers  other 
prop  re  thinges,  as  two  heddes  of  seynt 
Ursula,  wich  bycause  ther  ys  no  maner 
of  sylver  abowt  them,  I  reserve  tyll  I 
have  another  hedd  of  herse,  wich  I 
schall  fynd  in  my  waye  within  thees 
xiiii.  days,  as  I  am  creadably  in- 
formyd."  (Ibid.  p.  234.)  NicanderNu- 
cius  (op.  cit.  pp.  51-62)  relates  some 
of  the  stories  current  at  the  time  of 
the  miracles  engineered  by  the  monks 
to  stave  off  their  impending  doom. 

4  Pari.  Hist.  I.  535. 


DESTRUCTION    OF    THE   MONASTIC    SYSTEM.      475 

in  the  former  act,  as  well  as  all  that  might  thereafter  he  sup- 
pressed, forfeited,  or  resigned,1  and  May  9th,  1540,  by  special 
enactment  the  ancient  order  of  the  Knights  of  St.  John  was 
broken  up,  pensions  being  granted  to  the  grand  prior  and 
some  of  the  principal  dignitaries.2  These  measures  consum- 
mated the  ruin  of  the  monastic  system  in  England.  Hence- 
forth it  was  altogether  at  the  king's  mercy,  and  his  character 
was  not  one  to  temper  power  with  moderation.  In  1539 
there  are  upon  record  fifty-seven  surrenders  of  the  great 
abbeys,3  and  a  large  number  in  1510,  the  good  house  of 
Godstow  being  the  last  of  the  great  monasteries  to  fall.  Of 
the  old  monastic  system  this  left  only  the  chantries,  free 
chapels,  collegiate  churches,  hospitals,  &c,  which  were  gradu- 
ally absorbed  during  the  succeeding  years  ;4  until  the  neces- 
sities of  the  king  prompted  a  sweeping  measure  for  their  de- 
struction. Accordingly  in  1515  a  bill  was  brought  in  placing 
them  all  at  his  disposition.  There  were  some  indications  of 
opposition,  but  the  king  pleaded  the  expenditures  of  the 
French  and  Scottish  wars,  and  solemnly  promised  his  Parlia- 
ment "  that  all  should  be  done  for  the  glory  of  God  and  com- 
mon profit  of  the  realm,"  whereupon  it  was  passed.5  It  is 
computed  that  the  number  of  monasteries  suppressed,  by 
these  various  measures,  was  615  ;  of  colleges,  90;'  of  chantries 
and  free  chapels,  2374;  and  of  hospitals,  HO.6 

A  vast  amount  of  property  thus  passed  into  the  hands  of 
the  court.  The  clear  yearly  rental  of  the  suppressed  houses 
alone  was  rated  at  £131,607  6s.  4d< — an  immense  sum  in  those 
days;  but  Burnet  states  that  in  reality  it  was  almost  tenfold 
that  amount.7  Small  as  may  have  been  the  good  effected  by 
these  enormous  possessions  in  the  hands  of  the  monks,  it  was 


'  31  Henry  VIII.  c.  13  (Pari.  Hist. 
I.  537). 

2  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  24  (Ibid.  543-44). 

3  Burnet,  I.  2G2-3. 

4  Rymer,  XIV.  XV. 

5  37  Hen.  VIII.  c.  4  (Pari.  Hist.  I. 
561). 

6  Pari.  Hist.  I.  537.      Such  hospi- 
tals, chantries,  &c,  as  were  spared  by 


Henry  VIII.  were  speedily  swept 
away,  as  soon  as  Edward  VI.  suc- 
ceeded to  the  throne,  by  the  act  1 
Edw.  VI.  c.  14  (Pari.  Hist.  I.  583). 

7  This  may  readily  be  considered 
no  exaggeration.  A  letter  from  John 
Freeman  to  Cromwell  values  at 
£80,000  the  lead  alone  stripped  from 
the  dismantled  houses  (Suppression 
of  Monasteries,  p.  290). 


476 


THE    ANGLICAN   CHURCH 


even  more  worthless  "under  the  management  of  its  new 
masters.  Henry  admitted  the  heavy  responsibility  which  he 
assumed  in  thus  seizing  the  wealth  which  had  been  dedicated 
to  pious  uses,  and  he  entertained  magnificent  schemes  for 
devoting  it  to  the  public  benefit,  but  his  own  necessities  and 
the  grasping  avarice  of  needy  courtiers  wrought  out  a  result 
ridiculously  mean.  Thus  he  designed  to  set  aside  a  rental 
of  £18,000  for  the  support  of  eighteen  "  Byshopprychys  to 
be  new  made."1  For  this  purpose  he  obtained  full  power 
from  Parliament  in  1539, 2  and  in  1540  he  established  one  on 
the  remains  of  the  Abbey  of  Westminster.  Those  of  Ches- 
ter, Gloucester,  and  Peterboro'  were  established  in  1541,  and 
in  1543  those  of  Oxford  and  Bristol,3  and  one  of  them,  that 
of  "Westminster,  was  suppressed  in  1550,  leaving  only  five  as 
the  result.  Splendid  foundations  were  promised  for  institu- 
tions of  learning,  but  little  was  given ;  a  moderate  sum  was 
expended  in  improving  the  sea-ports,  while  broad  manors  and 
rich  farms  were  granted  to  favorites  at  almost  nominal  prices ; 
and  the  ill-gotten  wealth  abstracted  from  the  church  disap- 
peared without  leaving  traces  except  in  the  sudden  and  over- 
grown fortunes  of  those  gentlemen  who  were  fortunate  or 
prompt  enough  to  make  use  of  the  golden  opportunity. 

If  it  be  asked  what  became  of  the  "holy  idle  thieves"  and 
"sturdy  loobies"  whom  the  Beggars'  Petition  so  earnestly 
desired  to  be  thrown  upon  the  world,  the  answer  may  be 
found  in  the  legislation  of  Edward  VI.  A  poor-law,  the  com- 
mencement of  a  series  which  to  this  day  has"  pressed  upon 
England  with  ever  increasing  weight,  was  enacted  in  1552.4 
This  tells  its  own  story,  but  even  more  suggestive  was 
another  bill  for  the  suppression  of  vagabondage,  the  pro- 
visions of  which  mark  not  only  the  inhumanity  of  the  age, 
but  the  magnitude  of  the  evil  caused  by  the  violent  acts  of 
Henry.  Every  able-bodied  man  loitering  in  any  place  for 
three  days  without  working  or  offering  to  work  was  held 


1  Such  is  the  substance  of  a  memo- 
randum in  Henry's  own  hand-writing 
(Suppression  of  Monasteries,  No.  131, 
p.  263). 


2  31  Hen.  VIII.  c.  9  (Pari.  Hist.  I. 
540). 

3  Burnet,  I.  300. 

4  5-6  Edw.  VI.  c.  2  (Pari.  Hist.  I. 
596). 


SACERDOTAL  CELIBACY  RETAINED.     477 

to  be  a  vagabond.  He  was  thereupon  to  be  branded  on  the 
breast  with  a  letter  Y,  and  adjudged  as  a  slave  for  two  years 
to  any  one  who  might  bring  him  for  that  purpose  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace.1  Such  was  the  ignominious  end  of  the 
powerful  and  wealthy  monastic  orders  of  England. 

The  monastic  establishments  of  Ireland  shared  the  same 
fate.  Rymer2  gives  the  text  of  a  commission  for  the  sup- 
pression of  a  nunnery  of  the  diocese  of  Dublin,  in  1535. 
The  insubordination  of  the  island,  however,  rendered  it 
difficult  to  carry  out  the  suppression  everywhere,  and  finally, 
in  1541,  it  was  accomplished  by  virtually  granting  their  lands 
to  the  native  chieftains.  These  were  good  Catholics,  but  they 
could  not  resist  the  temptation.  They  joined  eagerly  in 
grasping  the  spoil,  and  the  desirable  political  object  was 
effected  of  detaching  them,  for  the  time,  from  the  foreign 
alliances  with  the  Catholic  powers  which  threatened  serious 
evils.3 

It  is  a  striking  proof  of  Henry's  strength  of  will  and  in- 
tense individuality  of  character,  that,  in  thus  tearing  up  by 
the  roots  the  whole  system  of  monachism,  he  did  not  yield 
one  jot  to  the  powerful  section  of  his  supporters  who  had 
pledged  themselves  to  the  logical  sequence  of  his  acts,  the 
abrogation  of  sacerdotal  celibacy  in  general.  While  every 
reason  of  policy  and  statesmanship  urged  him  to  grant  the 
privilege  of  marriage  to  the  secular  clergy,  whom  he  forced 
to  transfer  to  him  the  allegiance  formerly  rendered  to  Rome ; 
while  his  chief  religious  advisers  at  home  and  his  Protestant 
allies  abroad  used  every  endeavor  to  wring  from  him  this 
concession,  he  steadily  and  persistently  refused  it  to  the  end, 
and  we  can  only  guess  whether  his  firmness  arose  from  con- 
scientious conviction  or  from  the  pride  of  a  controversialist. 

Notwithstanding  his  immovable  resolution  on  this  point, 


1  1  Edw.  VI.  c.  3. — Pari.  Hist.  I.  583.  j  parte,  so  they  myght  change  tker 
— Burnet,  II.  45.  In  1538  the  Bishop  |  cotes,  the  whyche  they  be  not  abull  to 
of  Dover   interceded  with   Cromwell  j  paye  for,  for   they  have  no  thenge' 


for  licenses  to  enable  some  ejected 
friars  to  abandon  their  monastic 
gowns,  "  For  off  trewthe  ther  harttes 
be  clene  from  the  relygyon  the  more 


(Suppression  of  Monasteries,  p.  197). 

2  Fcedera,  T.  XIV.  p.  551. 

3  Froude,  Hist.  Engl.  IV.  543. 


478 


THE   ANGLICAN    CHURCH 


his  power  seemed  ineffectual  to  stay  the  progress  of  the  new 
ideas.  An  assembly  held  by  his  order  in  May,  1530,  to  con- 
demn the  heretical  doctrines  disseminated  in  certain  books, 
shows  how  openly  the  advocates  of  clerical  marriage  had  pro- 
mulgated their  views  while  yet  Wolsey  was  prime  minister  and 
Henry  gloried  in  the  title  of  Defender  of  the  Faith.  Nume- 
rous books  were  denounced  in  which  celibacy  was  ridiculed, 
its  sanctity  disproved,  and  its  evil  influences  commented  upon 
in  the  most  irreverent  manner.1 

If  the  reforming  polemics  were  thus  bold  while  Henry  was 
yet  orthodox,  it  may  readily  be  imagined  how  keenly  they 
watched  the  progress  of  his  quarrel  with  the  pope,  and  how 
loud  became  their  utterances  as  he  gradually  threw  off  his 
allegiance  to  Rome  and  persecuted  all  who  hesitated  to  follow 
in  his  footsteps.  He  soon  showed,  however,  that  he  allowed 
none  to  precede  him,  and  that  all  consciences  were  to  be  mea- 
sured by  the  royal  ell-wand.  Thus  his  proceedings  against  the 
Franciscans  in  1534  were  varied  by  a  proclamation  directed 
against  seditious  books  and  priestly  marriages.  It  seems  that 
some  unions  had  taken  place,  and  all  who  had  committed  the 
indiscretion  were  deprived  of  their  functions  and  reduced  to 
the  laity,  though  the  marriages  seem  to  have  been  recognized 
as  valid.     Future  transgressions,  moreover,  were  threatened 


1  Thus  "  Aii  Exposition  into  the 
sevenith  Chapitre  of  the  firste  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians"  seems  to  have 
been  almost  entirely  devoted  to  an 
argument  against  celibacy,  adducing 
all  manner  of  reasons  derived  from 
nature,  morality,  necessity,  and  Scrip- 
ture, and  describing  forcibly  the  evils 
arising  from  the  rule.  The  author  does 
not  hesitate  to  declare  that  "  Matri- 
mony is  as  golde,  the  spirituall  estates 
as  dung,"  and  the  tenor  of  his  writings 
may  be  understood  from  his  triumph- 
ant exclamation,  after  insisting  that 
all  the  Apostles  and  their  immediate 
successors  were  married — "Seeing  that 
ye  chose  not  married  men  to  bishoppes, 
other  Criste  must  be  a  foole  or  un- 
righteous which  so  did  chose,  or  you 
anticristis  and  deceyvers." 

The  "Sum  of  Scripture"  was  more 


moderate  in  its  expressions.  "  Yf  a 
man  vowe  to  lyve  chaste  and  in  po- 
vertie  in  a  monasterie,  than  yf  he  per- 
cey  ve  that  in  the  monastery  he  ly  veth 
woorse  than  he  did  before,  as  in  forni- 
cation and  theft,  then  he  may  leve  the 
cloyster  and  breke  his  vowe  without 
synne." 

The  "Obedience  of  a  Cristen  Man" 
is  most  uncompromising.  "  Oportet 
presbyternin  ducere  uxorem  duas  ob 
causas."  .  .  .  "  If  thou  bind  thy  self  to 
chastitie  to  obteyn  that  which  Criste 
purchesed  for  the,  surely  soo  art  thow 
an  infidele." 

The  "  Revelation  of  Anticriste"  car- 
ries the  war  into  the  enemy's  terri- 
tory in  a  fashion  somewhat  savage. 
"  Keping  of  virginitie  and  chastite  of 
religion  is  a  devellishe  thinge."  (Wil- 
kins,  III.  728-34.) 


PROGRESS   OF   CLERICAL   MARRIAGE. 


479 


with  the  royal  indignation  and  further  punishment — words 
of  serious  import  at  such  a  time  and  under  such  a  monarch.1 
In  spite  of  all  this,  the  chief  advisers  of  Henry  did  not 
scruple  to  connive  at  infractions  of  the  proclamation.  Both 
Cranmer  and  Cromwell  favored  the  Keformation;  the  former 
was  himself  secretly  married,  and  the  latter,  though,  as  a 
layman,  without  any  such  personal  motive,  was  disposed  to 
relax  the  strictness  of  the  rule  of  celibacy.  During  the  visita- 
tion of  the  monasteries,  for  instance,  the  Abbot  of  Walclen 
had  little  hesitation  in  confessing  to  Ap  Eice,  the  visitor, 
that  he  was  secretly  married,  and  asked  to  be  secured  from 
molestation.  The  confidence  thus  manifested  in  the  friendly 
disposition  of  the  vicar-general  was  satisfactorily  responded  to. 
Cromwell  replied,  merely  warning  him  to  "use  his  remedy" 
without,  if  possible,  causing  scandal.2  A  singular  petition, 
addressed  to  him  in  1536  by  the  secular  clergy  of  the  dio- 
cese of  Bangor,  illustrates  forcibly  both  the  confidence  felt  in 
his  intentions,  and  the  necessity  of  the  Abbot  of  Walden's 


1  Wilkins,  III.  778.— Bishop  Wil- 
kins also  prints  (III.  69(5)  from  Har- 
mer's  "  Specimen  of  Errors"  this  procla- 
mation, with  unimportant  variations, 
as  "  given  this  16th  day  of  November, 
in  the  13th  year  of  our  reign,"  which 
would  place  it  in  1521.  It  is  impos- 
sible, however,  at  a  time  when  even 
the  Lutherans  of  Saxony  had  scarcely 
ventured  on  the  innovation,  that  in 
England  priestly  marriage  could  al- 
ready have  become  as  common  as  the 
proclamation  shows  it  to  be.  The  bull 
of  Leo  X.,  thanking  Henry  for  his 
refutation  of  Luther,  was  dated  Nov. 
4th,  1521,  and  we  may  be  sure  that 
the  king's  zeal  for  the  faith  would  at 
such  a  moment  have  prompted  him 
to  much  more  stringent  measures  of 
repression,  if  he  had  ventured,  at  that 
epoch,  to  invade  the  sacred  precincts 
of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction — a  thing 
he  would  have  been  by  no  means 
likely  to  do.  While  hesitating,  there- 
fore, to  call  in  question  Bishop  Wil- 
kins's  critical  acumen,  I  cannot  but 
regard  the  proclamation  of  1521  as 
apocryphal. 

For  the  same  reasons  I  have  been 
forced  to  reject  a  discussion  in  con- 


vocation of  the  same  year  (Wilkins, 
III.  697),  in  which  the  question  of 
sacerdotal' marriage  was  decided  tri- 
umphantly in  the  affirmative.  The 
proceedings  are  evidently  those  of  Dec. 
1547,  in  the  first  year  of  Edward  VI. 

2  MS.  State  Paper  Office  (Froude, 
III.  65).  Ap  Rice's  report  to  Crom- 
well is  sufficiently  suggestive  as  to 
the  interior  life  of  the  monastic  orders 
to  deserve  transcription.  "As  we  were 
of  late  at  Walden,  the  abbot  there 
being  a  man  of  good  learning  and  right 
sincere  judgment,  as  I  examined  him 
alone,  showed  me  secretly,  upon  stip- 
ulation of  silence,  but  only  unto  you 
as  our  judge,  that  he  had  contracted 
matrimony  with  a  certain  woman  se- 
cretly, having  present  thereat  but  one 
trusty  witness  ;  because  he,  not  being 
able,  as  he  said,  to  contain,  though  he 
could  not  be  suffered  by  the  laws  of 
man,  saw  he  might  do  it  lawfully  by 
the  laws  of  God  ;  and  for  the  avoiding 
of  more  inconvenience,  which  before 
he  was  provoked  unto,  he  did  thus, 
having  confidence  in  you  that  this  act 
should  not  be  anything  prejudicial 
unto  him." 


480 


THE    ANGLICAN    CHURCH 


"remedy"  in  the  fearful  state  of  immorality  which  prevailed. 
There  had  been  a  visitation  in  which  the  petitioners  admit 
that  many  of  them  had  been  fonnd  in  fault,  and  as  their 
women  had  been  consequently  taken  away,  they  pray  the 
vicar-general  to  devise  some  means  by  which  their  consorts 
may  be  restored.  They  do  not  venture  to  ask  directly  for 
marriage,  but  decency  forbids  the  supposition  that  they  could 
openly  request  Cromwell  to  authorize  a  system  of  concubinage. 
Nothing  can  be  more  humiliating  than  their  confession  of  the 
relations  existing  between  themselves,  as  ministers  of  Christ, 
and  the  flocks  intrusted  to  their  spiritual  care.  After  plead- 
ing that  without  women  they  cannot  keep  house  and  exercise 
hospitality,  they  add:  "We  ourselves  shall  be  driven  to  seek 
our  living  at  ale-houses  and  taverns,  for  mansions  upon  the 
benefices  and  vicarages  we  have  none.  And  as  for  gentlemen 
and  substantial  honest  men,  for  fear  of  inconvenience,  knowing 
our  frailty  and  accustomed  liberty,  they  will  in  nowise  board  us 
in  their  houses.111 

There  appears,  indeed,  about  this  period,  to  have  been  great 
uncertainty  in  the  public  mind  respecting  the  state  of  the  law 
and  the  king's  intentions.  Two  letters  happen  to  have  been 
preserved,  written  within  a  few  days  of  each  other,  in  June, 
1537,  to  Cromwell,  which  reveal  the  condition  of  opinion  at 
the  time.  One  of  these  complains  that  the  vicar  of  Mendels- 
ham,  in  Suffolk,  has  brought  home  a  wife  and  children,  whom 
he  claims  to  be  lawfully  his  own,  and  that  it  is  permitted  by 
the  king.  Although  "thys  acte  by  hym  done  is  in  thys  countre 
a  monstre,  and  many  do  growdge  at  it,"  yet,  not  knowing  the 
king's  pleasure,  no  proceedings  can  be  had,  and  appeal  is 
therefore  made  for  authority  to  prosecute,  lest  "hys  ensample 
wnponnyched  shall  be  occacion  for  other  carnall  evyll  dys- 
posed  prestes  to  do  in  lyke  maner."    The  other  letter  is  from 


>  MS.  State  Paper  Office  (Froude, 
III.  372).  The  tendencies  thus  exhi- 
bited by  the  king's  advisers  called 
forth  the  remonstrances  of  the  con- 
servatives. In  June,  1536,  the  lower 
house  of  convocation  presented  a  me- 
morial inveighing  strongly  against  the 
progress  of  heresy,  and  among  the 
obnoxious    opinions   condemned   was 


"  that  priests  were  like  other  men, 
and  might  marry  and  have  wives  like 
other  men."  A  special  charge  against 
Cromwell  was  that  these  heretical  doc- 
trines were  openly  advocated  in  books 
printed  "  cum  privilegio,"  thus  having 
the  apparent  sanction  of  the  crown. 
(Ibid.  pp.  64-5.) 


henry's  firmness.  481 

an  unfortunate  priest  who  had  recently  married,  supposing  it 
to  be  lawful.  The  "noyse  of  the  peopull,"  however,  had  just 
informed  him  that  a  royal  order  had  commanded  the  separa- 
tion of  such  unions,  and  he  had  at  once  sent  his  wife  to  her 
friends,  threescore  miles  away.  He  therefore  hastens  to  make 
his  peace,  protesting  that  he  had  sinned  through  ignorance, 
though  he  makes  bold  to  argue  that  "yf  the  kyngys  grace 
could  have  founde  yt  laufull  that  prestys  mught  have  byn 
maryd,  they  wold  have  byn  to  the  crowne  dubbyll  and  dub- 
by 11  faythefull ;  furste  in  love,  secondly  for  fere  that  the 
byschoppe  of  Eome  schuld  sette  yn  hys  powre  unto  ther 
desolacyon."1 

Notwithstanding  the  influences  with  which  he  was  thus 
surrounded,  Henry  sternly  adhered  to  the  position  which  he 
had  assumed.2  When,  in  1538,  the  princes  of  the  Schmalcaldic 
League  offered  to  place  him  at  its  head,  and  even  to  alter,  if 
possible,  the  Augsburg  Confession  so  as  to  make  it  a  common 
basis  of  union  for  all  the  elements  of  opposition  to  Rome, 
Henry  was  well  inclined  to  obtain  the  political  advantages  of 
the  position  tendered  him,  but  hesitated  to  accept  it  until  all 
doctrinal  questions  should  be  settled.  The  three  points  on 
which  the  Germans  insisted  were  the  communion  in  both 
elements,  the  worship  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  and  the  marriage 
of  the  clergy.  Henry  was  firm,  and  the  ambassadors  of  the 
League  spent  two  months  in  conferences  with  the  English 


1  Suppression  of  Monasteries,  pp. 
160-1.  It  is  evident  from  these  let- 
ters that  there  was  still  a  genuine 
popular  antipathy  to  clerical  marriage, 
and  yet  that  the  royal  supremacy  was 
so  firmly  established  by  Henry's  ruth- 
less persecutions  that  this  antipatby 
was  held  subject  to  the  pleasure  of 
the  court,  and  could  at  any  moment 
have  been  dissipated  by  proclamation. 
In  fact,  the  only  wonder  is  that  any 
convictions  remained  in  the  minds  of 
those  who  had  seen  the  objects  of 
their  profoundest  veneration  made  the 
sport  of  avarice  and  flerision.  Stately 
churches  torn  to  pieces,  the  stone  sold 


the  consecrated  bells  cast  into  cannon, 
the  sacred  vessels  melted  down,  the 
holy  relics  snatched  from  the  shrines 
and  treated  as  old  bones  and  offal,  the 
venerated  images  burned  at  Smith- 
field — all  this  could  have  left  little  sen- 
timent of  respect  for  worn-out  religious 
observances  in  those  who  watched  and 
saw  the  sacrilege  remain  unpunished. 

2  He  made  one  exception.  Nuns 
professed  before  the  age  of  21  were  at 
liberty  to  marry  after  the  dissolution 
of  their  houses,  whereat,  according 
to  Dr.  London,  they  "be  wonderfull 
gladde  .  .  .  and  do  pray  right  hartely 


to  sacrilegious  builders,  the  lead  "put  I  forthekingesmajestie."  (Suppression 
up  at  auction  to  the  highest  bidder,  |  of  Monasteries,  p.  214.) 

31 


482 


THE   ANGLICAN   CHURCH. 


bishops  and  doctors  without  result.  On  their  departure  (Au- 
gust 5th,  1538),  they  addressed  him  a  letter  arguing  the  sub- 
jects in  debate — the  refusal  of  the  cup,  private  masses,  and 
sacerdotal  celibacy— to  which  Henry  replied  at  some  length, 
defending  his  position  on  these  topics  with  no  little  skill  and 
dexterity,  and  refusing  his  assent  finally.1  The  reformers, 
however,  did  not  yet  despair,  and  the  royal  preachers  even 
ventured  occasionally  to  debate  the  propriety  of  clerical  mar- 
riage freely  before  him  in  their  sermons,  but  in  vain.2  An 
epistle  which  Melancthon  addressed  him  in  April,  1539,  ar- 
guing the  same  questions  again,  had  no  better  effect.3 

Notwithstanding  any  seeming  hesitation,  Henry's  mind 
was  fully  made  up,  and  the  consequences  of  endeavoring  to 
persuade  him  against  his  prejudices  soon  became  apparent. 
Confirmed  in  his  opinions,  he  proceeded  to  enforce  them  upon 
his  subjects  in  the  most  peremptory  manner,  "for  though  on 
all  other  points  he  had  set  up  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,"  yet  on  these  he  had  committed  himself  as  a  con- 
troversialist, and  the  worst  passions  of  polemical  authorship 
the  true  "odium  theologicum" — acting  through  his  irre- 
sponsible despotism,  rendered  him  the  cruellest  of  persecutors. 
But  a  few  weeks  after  receiving  the  letter  of  Melancthon,  he 
answered  it  in  his  own  savage  fashion. 

In  May  a  new  parliament  met,  chosen  under  great  ex- 
citement, for  the  people  were  inflamed  on  the  subject  of 
religion,  and  animosities  ran  high.  The  principal  object  of 
the  session  was  known  to  be  a  settlement  of  the  national 
church,  and  as  the  reformers  were  as  yet  in  a  minority  against 
the  court,  the  temper  of  the  Houses  was  not  likely  to  be 
encouraging  for  them.4  On  the  5th  of  May,  a  week  after  its 
assembling,  a  committee  was  appointed,  at  the  king's  request, 


i  Burnet,  I.  254-55  ;  Append.  332, 
347. 

2  "  Nothing  has  yet  been  settled  con- 
cerning the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  al- 
though some  persons  have  very  freely 
preached  before  the  king  upon  the  sub- 
ject."— John  Butler  to  Conrad  Pellican 
(Froude,  III.  382). 

3  Burnet,  I.  Append.  329. 


4  Yet  the  moderate  party  ventured 
to  submit  to  parliament  "A  Device  for 
extirpating  Heresies  among  the  Peo- 
ple," among  the  suggestions  of  which 
was  a  bill  for  abolishing  ecclesiastical 
celibacy,  legalizing  all  existing  mar- 
riages, and  permitting  the  clergy  in 
general  "  to  have  wives  and  work  for 
their  living."  —  Rolls  House  MS. 
(Froude,  III.  381). 


THE    SIX   ARTICLES.  483 

to  take  into  consideration  the  differences  of  religious  opinion. 
On  the  16th,  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  who  was  not  a  member  of 
the  committee,  reported  that  no  agreement  could  be  arrived 
at,  and  he  therefore  laid  before  the  House  of  Lords,  for  full 
discussion,  articles  embracing — 1st.  Transubstantiation ;  2d. 
Communion  in  both  kinds;  3d.  Yows  of  Chastity;  4th.  Pri- 
vate Masses;  5th.  Sacerdotal  Marriages;  and  6th.  Auricular 
Confession.  Cranmer  opposed  them  stoutly,  arguing  against 
them  for  three  days,  and  especially  endeavoring  to  controvert 
the  third  and  fifth,  which  enjoined  celibacy,  but  his  efforts 
and  those  of  his  friends  were  vain,  when  pitted  against  the 
known  wishes  of  the  king,  who  himself  took  an  active  part 
in  the  debate,  and  argued  in  favor  of  the  articles  with  much 
vigor.  Under  such  circumstances,  the  adoption  of  the  Six 
Articles  was  a  foregone  conclusion.  Od  the  30th  of  May  the 
chancellor  reported  that  the  House  had  agreed  upon  them, 
and  that  it  was  the  king's  pleasure  "that  some  penal  statute 
should  be  enacted  to  compel  all  his  subjects  who  were  in  any 
way  dissenters  or  contradicters  of  these  articles  to  obey  them." 
The  framing  of  such  a  bill  was  intrusted  to  two  committees,  one 
under  the  lead  of  Cranmer,  the  other  under  that  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  and  they  were  instructed  to  lay  their  re- 
spective plans  before  the  king  within  forty-eight  hours.  Of 
course  the  report  of  the  Archbishop  of  York  was  adopted. 
Introduced  on  the  7th  of  June,  Cranmer  again  resisted  it  gal- 
lantly, but  it  passed  both  Houses  by  the  14th,  and  received 
the  royal  assent  on  the  28th.  It  was  entitled  "An  Act  for 
abolishing  Diversity  of  Opinions  in  pertain  Articles  concern- 
ing Christian  Religion,"  and  it  stands  as  a  monument  of  the 
cruel  legislation  of  a  barbarous  age.  The  Third  Article  was 
"that  Priests  after  the  order  of  Priesthood  might  not  marry 
by  the  Law  of  God;"  the  Fourth,  "that  Yows  of  Chastity 
ought  to  be  observed  by  the  Law  of  'God,"  and  those  who 
obstinately  preached  or  disputed  against  them  were  adjudged 
felons,  to  suffer  death  without  benefit  of  clergy.  Any  oppo- 
sition, either  in  word  or  writing,  subjected  the  offender  to 
imprisonment  during  the  king's  pleasure,  and  a  repetition  of 
the  offence  constituted  a  felony,  to  be  expiated  with  the  life 
of  the  culprit.     Priestly  marriages  were  declared  void,  and  a 


484  THE   ANGLICAN    CHURCH. 

priest  persisting  in  living  with  his  wife  was  to  be  executed 
as  a  felon*.  Concubinage  was  punishable  with  deprivation  of 
benefice  and  property,  and  imprisonment,  for  a  first  offence; 
a  second  lapse  was  visited  with  a  felon's  death,  while  in  all 
cases  the  wife  or  concubine  shared  the  fate  of  her  partner  in 
guilt.  Quarterly  sessions  were  provided,  to  be  held  by  the 
bishops  and  other  commissioners  appointed  by  the  king,  for 
the  purpose  of  enforcing  these  laws,  and  the  accused  were 
entitled  to  trial  by  jury.1  Yows  of  chastity  were  only  bind- 
ing on  those  who  had  taken  them  of  their  own  free  will  when 
over  twenty-one  years  of  age.2  According  to  the  Act,  the 
wives  of  priests  were  to  be  put  away  by  June  24th,  but  on 
that  day,  as  the  act  was  not  yet  signed,  an  order  was  merci- 
fully made  extending  the  time  to  July  12th.3 

Cranmer  argued,  reasonably  enough,  that  it  was  a  great 
hardship,  in  the  case  of  the  ejected  monks,  to  insist  on  the 
observance  of  the  vow  of  chastity,  when  those  of  poverty  and 
obedience  were  dispensed  with,  and  when  the  unfortunates 
had  been  forcibly  deprived  of  all  the  advantages,  safeguards, 
and  protection  of  monastic  life.4  The  matter,  however,  was 
not  decided  by  reason,  but  by  the  whimsical  perversity  of  a 
self-opinionated  man,  who,  unfortunately,  had  the  power  to 
condense  his  polemical  notions  in  the  blood  of  his  subjects. 

To  comprehend  the  full  iniquity  of  this  savage  measure  we 
must  remember  the  rapid  progress  which  the  new  opinions 
had  been  making  in  England  for  twenty  years ;  the  tacit  en- 
couragement given  them  by  the  suppression  of  the  religious 


»  Burnet,  I.  258-9.    Mr.  Froude  en-        3  Pari.  Hist.  I.  540. 

deavors  to  relieve  Henry  of  the  respon-        <  ^     t      a        -u        •  i      ^     j.       n 
......        ,  ,,  .  J  ■,  x      i      4  Dr.  London  chronicles  the  troubles 

sibihty  of  this  measure,  and  quotes  '    ,  ,,  .      ,  ,,  T  e 

,T  i        .1        .      u       i\    *.  -i.  ia     •      of  this  class.     "I  perceyve  many  of 

Melancthon  to  show  that  its  cruelty  is    ,,        ,,  i  a     i 

l  -u   i  ui     a     n     a-         su-  a    -n     i      the  other  sortt,  monkes  and  chanons, 
attributable  to  Gardiner  (Hist.  Engl,  i     ,  .  ,      ,  '      ,     ,.  ,. 

ttt   onrs      xt       a     •*.     l  ii    4    wnione  be  yonge  lustie  men,  allways 

III.  395).     He  admits,  however,  that    „  ..    ,  , ,      J,      P      .        ,  ,     '         ,  J . 
..     ..„'  a  A-te       i    *    i-   i  ii      fatt  fedde,  lyving  in  ydelnes  and  at 

the  bill  as  passed  differs  but  sliehtly         ,  ,         '    J      P    . ,  •r,,    ,  .    . 

1  rest,  be  sore  perplexide  that  now  being 

prestes   they   may   nott    retorn    and 

marye."  (Suppression  of  Monasteries, 

p.  215.) 

Nicander  Nucius  asserts  that  many 

did  marry  openly — "aXXouc  $t  yvi/ouna.q 

In&fMtf  crvvtvi/ov^  e!tf-ayo(uivov£."     (Op.  cit. 

p.  71.) 


from  that  presented  by  the  king  him- 
self, with  whom  the  committee  which 
framed  it  must  have  acted  in  concert. 
According  to  Strype,  "  had  not  the 
king  come  himself  in  person  into  the 
parliament  house,  it  would  not  have 
passed."— Pari.  Hist.  I.  536-40. 

2  31  Henry  VIII.  c.  6  (Pari.  Hist, 
loc.  cit.)- 


THE    SIX    ARTICLES 


485 


houses,  and  by  the  influence  of  the  king's  confidential  advisers ; 
and  the  hopes  naturally  excited  by  Henry's  quarrel  with  Kome 
and  negotiations  with  the  League  of  Schmalcalden.  In  spite, 
therefore,  of  the  comparatively  mild  punishments  hitherto 
imposed  on  priestly  marriage,  which  were  no  doubt  practi- 
cally almost  obsolete,  such  unions  may  safely  be  assumed  as 
numerous.  Even  Cranmer  himself,  the  primate  of  Henry's 
church,  was  twice  married,  his  second  wife,  then  living,  the 
sister  of  Osiander,  being  kept  under  a  decent  veil  of  secrecy 
in  his  palace.  When,  after  his  fruitless  resistance  to  the  Six 
Articles,  the  bill  was  passed,  he  sent  his  wife  to  her  friends  in 
Germany,  until  the  death  of  his  master  enabled  him  to  bring 
her  back  and  acknowledge. her  openly;1  but  vast  numbers  of 
unfortunate  pastors  could  not  have  had  the  opportunity,  and 
perhaps  lacked  the  self-control,  thus  to  arrange  their  domestic 
affairs.  Even  the  gentle  Melancthon  was  moved  from  his 
ordinary  equanimity,  and  ventured  to  address  to  his  royal 
correspondent  a  remonstrance  expressing  his  horror  of  the 
cruelty  which  could  condemn  to  the  scaffold  a  man  whose 
sole  guilt  consisted  in  not  abandoning  the  wife  to  whom  he 
had  promised  fidelity  through  good  and  evil,  before  God  and 


man/ 


1  Burnet,  I.  256-7.  It  was  not  until 
1543  that  he  ventured  to  confess  this 
to  the  king.  (Ibid.  p.  328.)  At  his 
trial  in  1556  his  two  marriages  were 
one  of  the  points  of  accusation  against 
him.    (Ibid.  II.  339.) 

Sanders,  in  commenting  upon  Cran- 
mer's  time-serving  disposition,  which 
enabled  him  to  accommodate  himself 
to  Henry's  capricious  opinions,  and 
yet  to  enter  fully  into  the  reformatory 
ideas  predominant  under  Edward  VI., 
does  not  fail  to  satirize  his  connubial 
propensities.  "  Son  seul  deplaisir  es- 
toit  de  ne  pouvoir  vivre  publiquement 
avec  sa  concubine  comme  avec  une 
femme  legitime,  ce  qu'il  scavoit  bien 
que  Henri  n'eust  pas  souffert :  de  sorte 
qu'il  estoit  contraint  de  la  tenir  cachee 
dans  son  palais,  et  quand  il  alloit  a 
la  campagne,  on  la  portoit  avec  luy 
dans  une  litiere  fermee.  Apres  la  mort 
de  Henri,  il  s'affranchoit  de  ce  facheux 
esclavage ;  la  jeunesse  d'Edouard  et 


la  protection  que  Seimer  accordoit  a 
toutes  sortes  de  Sectes,  luy  persuade- 
rent  de  se  plonger  dans  l'incontinence 
et  dans  l'heresie  :  car  il  vivoit  dans 
un  concubinage  public  avec  sa  mai- 
tresse,  et  il  dedia  un  catechisme  a 
Edouard  rempli  d'une  doctrine  fausse 
et  impie." — Hist,  du  Schisme  d'Angle- 
terre  (trad.  Maucroix,  Paris,  1676). 

2  Valde  autem  miratus  sum  votum 
sacerdotum  in  Anglico  decreto  etiam 
arctius  adstringi  quam  votum  mona- 
chorum,  cum  canones  ipsi  tantum 
eatenus  velint  obligatum  esse  presby- 
terum  si  sit  in  ministerio ;  planeque 
cohorrui  legens  hunc  articulum,  pro- 
hibet  matrimonia  et  contracta  dis- 
solvit,  et  addit  poenam  capitalem.  .  .  . 
Quis  credat  in  ecclesta  in  qua  lenitas 
prsecipue  erga  pios  esse  debet  tantam 
existere  posse  ssevitiam,  ut  capitales 
pcenae  constituantur  in  homines  pios 
propter  conjugium.— Melancthon.  Lib. 
i.  Epist.  28. 


486  THE    ANGLICAN   CHURCH. 

As  might  be  expected,  numerous  divorces  of  married 
priests  followed  this  Draconian  legislation,  and  these  divorces 
were  held  good  by  the  act  of  1549,  which,  under  Edward 
VI.,  granted  full  liberty  in  the  premises  to  ecclesiastics.1 
Even  Henry,  however,  began  to  feel  that  he  had  gone  too 
far,  and  the  influence  of  Cromwell  was  sufficient  to  prevent 
the  harshest  features  of  the  law  from  being  enforced  in  all 
their  odious  severity,  especially  as  the*  projected  marriage 
with  Ann  of  Oleves  and  the  alliance  with  the  German  Luthe- 
rans rendered  active  persecution  in  the  highest  degree  impo- 
litic. When  the  comedy  of  Henry's  fourth  marriage  culmi- 
nated in  the  tragedy  of  Cromwell's  ruin  (June,  1540),  the 
reactionary  elements  again  gathered  strength.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  atrocity  of  the  law  had  greatly  inter- 
fered with  its  efficient  execution  and  had  aroused  popular  feel- 
ing, for  now,  although  the  Vicar-General  was  removed,  the 
Catholics  passed  with  speedy  alacrity  a  bill  moderating  the 
act  of  the  Six  Articles,  in  so  far  as  it  related  to  marriage 
and  concubinage.  For  capital  punishment  was  substituted 
the  milder  penalty  of  confiscation  to  the  king  of  all  the  pro- 
perty and  revenue  of  the  offenders.2 

The  Six  Articles,  as  thus  modified,  remained  the  law  of 
England  during  the  concluding  years  of  Henry's  reign,  nor  is 
it  likely  that  any  one  ventured  to  urge  upon  him  seriously  a 
relaxation  of  the  principles  to  which  he  had  committed  him- 
self thus  definitely.  The  fall  of  Cromwell  and  the  danger  to 
which  Cranmer  was  exposed  for  several  years  were  sufficient 
to  insure  him  against  troublesome  remonstrants,  even  if  his 
increasing  irritability  and  capriciousness  had  not  made  those 
around  him  daily  more  alive  to  the  danger  of  thwarting  or 
resisting  his  idlest  humor. 

On  the  28th  of  January,  1547,  Henry  VIII.  died,  and 
Edward  VI.  succeeded  to  the  perilous  throne.  Not  yet  ten 
years  of  age,  his  government  of  course  received  its  direction 
from  those  around  him,  and  the  rivalry  between  the  protector 


i  2-3  Edw.  VI.  c.  21.     (Pari.  Hist.  I      2  32  Hen.  VIII.    c.  10.— Burnet,  I. 
I.  586.)  I  282.— Pari.  Hist.  I.  575. 


ACCESSION   OF    EDWARD   VI.  487 

Somerset  and  the  chancellor  Wriothesley,  Earl  of  Southamp- 
ton, threw  the  former  into  the  hands  of  the  progressives,  as 
the  latter  was  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  reactionary 
party.  The  ruin  of  Southampton  and  the  triumph  of  Somer- 
set, strengthened  by  his  successful  campaign  in  Scotland,  soon 
began  to  develop  their  natural  consequences  on  the  religion 
of  the  country.  Under  the  auspices  of  Cranmer,  a  convoca- 
tion was  assembled  which  was  empowered  to  decide  all  ques- 
tions in  controversy.  When  the  primate  was  anxious  to 
again  enjoy  the  solace  of  his  wife's  company  and  to  relieve 
both  her  and  himself  from  the  stigma  of  unlawful  marriage, 
it  is  easy  to  understand  that  the  subject  of  celibacy  would 
receive  early  and  appropriate  attention.  Accordingly,  on 
December  17,  1547,  a  proposition  was  submitted  to  the  effect 
that  all  canons,  statutes,  laws,  decrees,  usages,  and  customs, 
interfering  with  or  prohibiting  marriage,  should  be  abrogated, 
and  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  53  to  22.  No  time  was  lost. 
Two  days  afterwards  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Commons 
permitting  married  men  to  be  priests  and  to  hold  benefices. 
It  was  received  with  so  much  favor  that  it  was  read  twice  the 
same  day,  and  on  the  21st  it  was  sent  up  to  the  Lords  ;  but 
in  the  Upper  House  it  raised  debates  so  prolonged  that,  as  the 
members  were  determined  to  adjourn  before  Christmas,  it 
was  laid  aside.  This  might  be  the  more  readily  agreed  to, 
since  on  the  23d  an  act  was  approved  which  abolished  nume- 
rous severe  laws  of  the  former  reign,  including  the  statute 
of  the  Six  Articles,  and  was  immediately  followed  by  another 
granting  the  use  of  the  cup  to  the  laity  and  prohibiting  pri- 
vate masses.1 

The  repeal  of  the  Six  Articles  left  the  marriage  of  the 
clergy  subject  to  the  previous  laws  of  Henry,  imposing  on  it 
various  pains  and  penalties,  but  with  the  votes  recorded  in 
convocation  and  Parliament,  it  is  not  likely  that  much  vigor 
was  displayed  in  their  enforcement.  Those  interested  could 
thus  afford  to  await  the  reassembling  of  the  Houses,  which 
did  not  take  place  until  November  24, 1548,  but  they  claimed 


•  1  Edw.  I.  c.  1,  12.  (Pari.  Hist.  I.  582-4.)—  Wilkins,  IV.  16.— Burnet,  II. 
40,  41.— Ibid.  III.  189. 


488  THE    ANGLICAN    CHURCH. 

the  reward  of  their  patience  by  an  early  hearing  in  the  ses- 
sion. On  the  3d  of  December  a  bill  was  introduced,  similar 
to  that  of  the  previous  year,  rendering  married  men  eligible 
to  the  priesthood ;  it  passed  second  reading  on  the  5th,  and 
third  reading  on  the  6th.  Apparently  encouraged  by  the 
favorable  reception  accorded  to  it,  the  friends  of  the  measure 
resolved  on  demanding  further  privileges.  The  bill  was 
therefore  laid  aside,  and  on  the  next  day  a  new  one  was  pre- 
sented which  granted  the  additional  liberty  of  marriage  to 
those  already  in  orders.  It  conceded  to  the  established  opin- 
ions the  fact  that  it  were  better  that  the  clergy  should  live 
chaste  and  single,  yet  "  as  great  filthiness  of  living  had  fol- 
lowed on  the  laws  that  compelled  chastity  and  prohibited 
marriage,"  therefore  all  laws  and  canons  inhibiting  sacerdotal 
matrimony  should  be  abolished.  This  bill,  after  full  discus- 
sion, was  read  a  second  and  third  time  on  the  10th  and  12th, 
and  was  sent  up  to  the  Lords  on  the  13th.  Again  the  Upper 
House  was  in  no  haste  to  pass  it.  It  lay  on  the  table  until 
February  9,  1549,  when  it  was  stoutly  contested,  and,  after 
being  recommitted,  it  finally  passed  on  the  19th,  with  the 
votes  of  nine  bishops  recorded  against  it.1 

Cranmer  and  his  friends  were  now  at  full  liberty  to  establish 
the  innovation  by  committing  the  clergy  individually  to  mar- 
riage, and  by  enlisting  the  popular  feeling  in  its  support. 
During  the  discussion  they  had  not  been  idle.  Much  contro- 
versial writing  had  occurred  on  both  sides,  in  which  Poinset, 
afterwards  Bishop  of  Winchester,  and  Parker,  afterwards 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  took  an  active  part,  while  Bale, 
Bishop  of  Ossory,  distinguished  himself  on  the  same  side  by 
raking  together  all  the  foul  stories  that  could  be  collected 
concerning  the  celibate  clergy  of  ancient  and  modern  times. 
Burnet  declares  that  no  law  passed  during  the  reign  of 
Edward  excited  more  contradiction  and  censure,  and  the, 
matrimonialists  soon  found  that  even  with  the  act  of  parlia- 
ment in  their  favor,  their  course  was  not  wholly  a  smooth 
one.  Cranmer  ordered  a  visitation  in  his  province,  and 
directed  as  one  of  the  points  for  inquiry  and  animadversion 


2-3  Edw.  I.  o.  31  (Pari.  Hist.  I.  586).— Burnet,  II.  88-9. 


RESISTANCE    OF    THE    PEOPLE. 


489 


11  Whether  any  do  contemn  married  priests,  and,  for  that  they 
be  married,  will  not  receive  the  communion  or  other  sacra- 
ments at  their  hands,"1  which  distinctly  reveals  the  difficulties 
encountered  in  eradicating  the  convictions  of  centuries  from 
the  popular  mind.  Sanders  says,  and  with  every  appearance 
of  probability,  that  the  Archbishop  of  York  united  with 
Cranmer  in  ordering  a  visitation  of  the  whole  kingdom, 
during  which  the  visitors  investigated  particularly  the  morals 
of  the  clergy,  and  used  every  argument  to  impel  them  to 
marriage,  not  only  declaring  celibacy  to  be  most  dangerous 
to  salvation,  but  intimating  that  all  who  adhered  to  it  would 
be  regarded  as  papists  and  enemies  of  the  king.2 

The  Reformers  speedily  found  that  they  were  not  to  escape 
without  opposition.  The  masses  of  the  people  throughout 
England  were  in  a  state  of  discontent.  The  vast  body  of 
abbey  lands  acquired  by  the  gentry  and  now  inclosed  bore 
hard  upon  many ;  the  raising  of  rents  showed  that  secular 
landlords  were  less  charitable  than  the  ancient  proprietors  of 
the  soil ;  the  increase  of  sheep-husbandry  threw  many  farm 
laborers  out  of  employ ;  and  the  savage  enactments,  already 
alluded  to,  against  the  unfortunate  expelled  monks  show  how 
large  an  element  of  influential  disaffection  was  actively  at 
work  in  the  substratum  of  society.  The  priests  who  dis- 
approved of  the  rapid  Protestantizing  process  adopted  by 
the  court  could  hardly  fail  to  take  advantage  of  opportunities 
so  tempting,  and  they  accordingly  fanned  the  spark  into  a 
flame.  The  enforcement  of  the  new  liturgy,  on  Whitsunday, 
1549,  seemed  the  signal  of  revolt.  Numerous  risings  took 
place,  which  were  readily  quelled,  until  one  in  Devonshire 
assumed  alarming  proportions.  Ten  thousand  men  in  arms 
made  demands  for  relief  in  religious  as  well  as  temporal 
matters.      Lord  Russel,  unable  to  meet  them  in  the  field, 


1  Wilkins,  IV.  26.  Wilkins  places 
this  in  1.547,  which  is  evidently  im- 
possible. Burnet  (II.  102)  alludes  to 
it  under  1549,  which  is  much  more 
likely  to  be  correct. 

2  lis  leur  conseilloient  done  de  se 
marier  de  peur  de  briiler,  ou  de  tomber 
en  des  pechez  dont  la  seule  pensee 
fait  horreur.  Enfin,  ils  leur  declaroient 


franchement,  Qu'ils  tenoient  pour  Pa- 
pistes  et  ennemis  du  Roy  tous  ceux 
qui  preferoient  un  celibat  dangereux 
a  un  manage  pudique  et  honneste, 
principalement  ayant  devant  les  yeux, 
le  saint  exemple  de  deux  archeveques 
celebres,  qui  n'avoient  point  fait  diffi- 
culte  de  se  marier. — Sanders,  Hist,  du 
Schisme,  p.  319. 


490 


THE    ANGLICAN    CHURCH. 


endeavored  to  gain  time  by  negotiation,  and  offered  to  receive 
their  complaints.  These  were  fifteen  in  number,  of  which 
several  demanded  the  restoration  of  points  of  the  old  re- 
ligion, and  one  insisted  on  the  revival  of  the  Six  Articles. 
On  their  refusal,  another  set  was  drawn  up,  in  which  not 
only  were  the  Six  Articles  called  for,  but  also  a  special 
provision  enforcing  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy.  This  was 
likewise  rejected;  but  during  the  delay  another  rising  occurred 
in  Norfolk,  reckoned  at  twenty  thousand  men,  and  yet  another 
of  less  formidable  dimensions  in  Yorkshire.  Eussel  finally 
scattered  the  men  of  Devon,  while  the  Earl  of  Warwick  suc- 
ceeded in  suppressing  the  rebels  of  Norfolk,  when  the  promise 
of  an  amnesty  caused  the  Yorkshiremen  to  disperse.1 

The  question  of  open  resistance  thus  was  settled.  Cranmer 
and  his  friends  had  now  leisure  to  consolidate  their  advantages 
and  organize  a  system  that  should  be  permanent.  In  1551, 
he  and  Eidley  prepared  with  great  care  a  series  of  forty-two 
articles,  embodying  the  faith  of  the  church  of  England,  which 
was  adopted  by  the  convocation  in  1552.  Burnet  speaks  of 
it  as  bringing  the  Anglican  doctrine  and  worship  to  perfection. 
It  remained  unaltered  during  the  rest  of  Edward's  reign,  and 
under  Elizabeth  it  was  only  modified  verbally  in  the  recen- 
sion which  resulted  in  the  famous  Thirty-nine  Articles — the 
foundation  stone  of  the  Episcopalian  edifice.  Of  these  forty- 
two  articles,  the  thirty-first  -declared  that  "  Bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons  are  not  commanded  by  God's  law  to  vow  the 
estate  of  a  single  life  or  to  abstain  from  marriage."2 

The  canon  law  had  thus  invested  the  marriage  of  the 
clergy  with  all  the  sanctity  that  the  union  of  man  and 
wife  could  possess.  Yet  still  the  deep-seated  conviction  of 
the  people  as  to  the  impropriety  of  such  proceedings  re- 
mained, troubling  the  repose  of  those  who  had  entered  into 
matrimony,  and  doubtless  operating  as  a  restraint  upon  the 
numbers  of  the  imitators  of  Cranmer.  The  act  of  1549  had 
to  a  certain  extent  justified  these  prejudices  by  admitting  the 


1  Burnet,  II.  117-9. 

2  Burnet,  II.  Append.  217.     In  the 
Latin  version, "  Episcopis,  presbyteris 


et  diaconis  non  est  mandatum  ut  cocli- 
batum  voveant ;  neque,  jure  divino 
coguntur  matrimonioabstinere"  (Wil- 
kins,  IV.  76). 


FURTHER    LEGALIZATION   OF    MARRIAGE.       491 

preferableness  of  a  single  life  in  the  ministers  of  Christ,  and 
it  was  resolved  to  remove  every  possible  stigma  by  a  solemn 
declaration  of  parliament.  A  bill  was  therefore  prepared 
and  speedily  passed  (Feb.  10th,  1552),  which  reveals  how 
strong  was  the  popular  opposition,  and  how  uncertain  the 
position  of  the  wives  and  children  of  the  clergy.  It  declares 
"  That  many  took  occasion  from  the  words  in  the  act  formerly 
made  about  this  matter,  to  say  that  it  was  only  permitted,  as 
usury  and  other  unlawful  things  were,  for  the  avoidance  of 
greater  evils,  who  thereupon  spoke  slanderously  of  such 
marriages,  and  accounted  the  children  begotten  in  them  to 
be  bastards,  to  the  high  dishonor  of  the  King  and  Parliament, 
and  the  learned  clergy  of  the  Eealm,  who  had  determined 
that  the  laws  against  priests'  marriages  were  most  unlawful 
by  the  law  of  God ;  to  which  they  had  not  only  given  their 
assent  in  the  Convocation,  but  signed  it  with  their  hands. 
These  slanders  did  also  occasion  that  the  Word  of  God  was 
not  heard  with  due  reverence."  It  was  therefore  enacted 
"  That  such  marriages  made  according  to  the  rules  prescribed 
in  the  Book  of  Service  should  be  esteemed  good  and  valid, 
and  that  the  children  begot  in  them  should  be  inheritable 
according  to  law."1 

A  still  further  confirmation  of  the  question  was  designed 
in  a  body  of  ecclesiastical  law  which  was  for  several  years 
in  preparation  by  various  commissions  appointed  for  the 
purpose.  In  this  it  was  proposed  to  make  the  abrogation  of 
celibacy  not  a  point  of  law  but  a  matter  of  faith,  for,  in  the 
second  Title,  among  the  various  heresies  condemned  is  that 
which  denies  "the  lawfulness  of  marriage,  particularly  in  the 
clergy."  This  work,  however,  though  completed,  had  not 
yet  received  the  royal  assent,  when  the  death  of  Edward  VI. 
caused  it  to  pass  out  of  sight.2 


1  5-6  Edw.  VI.  c.  12  (Pari.  Hist.  I.  apply  it  not  only  to  the  priesthood 

594). — Burnet,  II.  192.  but  to  the  whole  body  of  believers. 

It   is   curious    to   observe    at    the  See  "  The  Church  and  the   World," 

present  day  the  "  Ritualistic"  portion  edited  by  the  Rev.  Orby  Shipley,  2d 

of  the  English  clergy  adopt  the  same  edition,  1866,  p.  161. 

line  of  argument  from  the  marriage  !  2  gurnef   jj    197 

service  of  the   Anglican  ritual,  and  ' 


492 


THE    ANGLICAN   CHURCH 


If  the  Protestants  indulged  in  any  day-dreams  as  to  the 
permanency  of  their  institutions,  they  were  not  long  in 
finding  that  a  change  of  rulers  was  destined  to  cause  other 
changes  disastrous  to  their  hopes.  Even  the  funeral  of 
Edward,  on  the  8th  of  August,  1553,  afforded  them  a  fore- 
taste of  what  was  in  store.  Although  Cranmer  insisted  that 
the  public  ceremonies  in  Westminster  Abbey  should  be  con- 
ducted according  to  the  reformed  rites,  Queen  Mary,  still 
resident  in  the  Tower,  had  private  obsequies  performed  with 
the  Eoman  ritual,  where  Gardiner  celebrated  mortuary  mass 
in  presence  of  the  queen  and  some  four  hundred  attendants. 
When  the  incense  was  carried  around  after  the  Gospel,  it 
cha&ced  that  the  chaplain  who  bore  it  was  a  married  man, 
and  the  zealous  Dr.  Weston  snatched  it  from  him,  exclaiming, 
"  Shamest  thou  not  to  do  thine  office,  having  a  wife  as  thou 
hast  ?     The  queen  will  not  be  censed  by  such  as  thou  I"1 

Trifling  as  was  this  incident,  it  foreboded  the  wrath  to 
come.  Though  Mary  was  not  crowned  until  October  1st,  she 
had  issued  writs  for  a  parliament  to  assemble  on  the  10th, 
and  as  an  entire  change  in  the  religious  institutions  of  the 
country  was  intended,  we  may  not  uncharitably  believe  the 
assertion  that  every  means  of  influence  and  intimidation  was 
employed  to  secure  the  return  of  reactionary  members. 
These  efforts  were  crowned  with  complete  success.  The 
Houses  had  not  sat  for  three  weeks,  when  a  bill  was  sent 
down  from  the  Lords  repealing  all  the  acts  of  Edward's  reign 
concerning  religion,  and  after  a  debate  of  six  days  it  passed 
the  Commons.2 

The  effect  of  this  was  of  course  to  revive  the  statute  of  the 
Six  Articles,  and  to  place  all  married  priests  at  the  mercy  of 
the  queen ;  and  as  soon  as  she  felt  that  she  could  safely  exer- 
cise her  power,  she  brought  it  to  bear  upon  the  offenders. 
The  Spanish  marriage  being  agreed  upon  and  the  resultant 
insurrection  of  Sir  Thomas  Wyatt  being  suppressed,  Mary 
recognized  her  own  strength,  and  her  Komanizing  tendencies, 


1  Froude,  Hist.  Engl.  Vol.  VI.  pp. 
58-9.  This  story  derives  additional 
piquancy  from  the  fact  that  this  Dr. 


Weston  was  subsequently  deprived  of 
the  Deanery  of  Windsor  for  adultery. 

2  1  Mary  c.  2  (Pari.  Hist.  I.  609-10). 
—Burnet,  II.  255. 


PROCEEDINGS   AGAINST    MARRIED   BISHOPS.      493 

which  had  previously  been  somewhat  restrained,  became 
openly  manifested.  On  the  4th  of  March,  1554,  she  issued 
a  letter  to  her  bishops,  of  which  the  object  was  to  restore 
the  condition  of  affairs  under  Henry  VIIL,  except  that  the 
royal  prerogatives  as  head  of  the  church  were  expressly  dis- 
avowed. It  contained  eighteen  articles,  to  be  strictly  enforced 
throughout  all  dioceses.  Of  these  the  seventh  ordered  that  the 
bishops  should  by  summary  process  remove  and  deprive  all 
priests  who  should  have  been  married  or  lived  scandalously, 
sequestrating  their  revenues  during  the  proceedings.  Article 
VIIL  provided  that  widowers,  or  those  who  promised  to  live 
in  the  strictest  chastity,  be  treated  with  leniency,  and  receive 
livings  at  some  distance  from  their  previous  abode,  being 
properly  supported  meanwhile;  while  Article  IX.  directed 
that  those  who  suffered  deprivation  should  not  on  that  account 
be  allowed  to  live  with  their  wives,  and  that  due  punishment 
should  be  inflicted  for  all  contumacy.1 

No  time  was  lost  in  carrying  out  these  regulations.  By 
the  9th  of  the  same  month,  a  commission  was  already  in  ses- 
sion at  York,  which  cited  the  clergy  to  appear  before  it  on 
the  12th.  Still  more  summary  were  the  proceedings  com- 
menced against  offenders  of  the  highest  class,  designed  and 
well  fitted  to  strike  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  humbler  par- 
sons. On  the  16th  a  commission  was  issued  to  the  Bishops  of 
Winchester  (Stephen  Gardiner),  London  (Bonner),  Durham, 
St.  Asaphs,  Chichester,  and  Landaff,  to  investigate  the  cases 
of  the  Archbishop  of  York  and  the  Bishops  of  St.  Davids, 
Chester,  and  Bristol,  who,  according  to  report,  had  given  a 
most  pernicious  example  by  taking  wives,  in  contempt  of 
God,  to  the  damage  of  their  own  souls,  and  to  the  scandal  of 
all  men.  Any  three  of  the  commissioners  were  ■  empowered 
to  summon  the  accused  before  them,  and  to  ascertain  the 
truth  of  the  report  without  legal  delays  or  unnecessary  cir- 
cumlocution. If  it  were  found  correct,  then  they  were  autho- 
rized to  remove  the  offenders  at  once  and  forever  from  their 
dignities,  and  also  to  impose  penance  at  discretion.  This  was 
scant  measure  of  justice,  considering  that  the  marriage  of 


Burnet,  II.  Append.  264. 


494 


THE   ANGLICAN    CHURCH 


these  prelates  had  been  contracted  under  sanction  of  law,  and, 
if  that  law  had  recently  been  repealed,  that  at  least  the  option 
of  conforming  to  the  new  order  of  things  could  not  decently 
be  denied;  yet  even  this  mockery  of  a  trial  was  apparently 
withheld,  for  the  conge  d'elire  for  their  successors  is  dated 
March  18th,  only  two  days  after  the  commission  was  ap- 
pointed.1 

During  the  summer,  the  bishops  went  on  their  visitations. 
The  articles  prepared  by  Bonner  for  his  diocese  are  extant, 
among  which  we  find  directions  to  inquire  particularly  of  the 
people  whether  their  pastors  are  married,  and,  if  separated, 
whether  any  communication  or  intercourse  takes  place  between 
them  and  their  wives ;  also,  whether  any  one,  lay  or  clerical, 
ventures  to  defend  sacerdotal  matrimony.2  Few  of  the  weaker 
brethren  could  escape  an  inquisition  so  searching  as  this,  and 
though  some  controversy  arose,  and  a  few  tracts  were  printed 
in  defence  of  priestly  marriage,  such  men  as  Bonner  were  not 
likely  to  shrink  from  the  thorough  prosecution  of  the  work 
which  they  had  undertaken. 

When  the  convocation  assembled  in  this  year,  it  was  there- 
fore to  be  expected  that  only  orthodox  opinions  would  find 
expression.  Accordingly,  the  lower  House  presented  to  the 
bishops  an  humble  petition  praying  for  the  restoration  of  the 
old  usages,  among  the  points  of  which  are  requests  that  mar- 
ried priests  be  forcibly  separated  from  their  wives,  and  that 
those  who  endeavor  to  abandon  their  order  be  subjected  to 
special  animadversion.  This  clause  shows  that  many  unfor- 
tunates preferred  to  give  up  their  positions  and  lose  the 
means  of  livelihood,  rather  than  quit  the  wives  to  whom  they 


1  Burnet,  II.  275  and  Append.  256. — 
Rynier  (T.  XV.  pp.  376-77)  gives  a 
similar  commission  dated  March  9th, 
issued  to  Stephen  Gardiner  to  eject 
the  canons  and  prebendaries  of  West- 
minster in  the  same  summary  man- 
ner. The  proceedings  throughout 
England  were  doubtless  framed  on 
these  models. 

2  Art.  2.  Whether  your  parson,  vi- 
car, or  any  other  ministring  as  priest 
within  your  parish,  have  been  or  is 
married  or  taken  for  married,  not  yet 


separated  from  his  concubine  or  wo- 
man taken  for  wife  ?  Or  .  .  .  whether 
the  one  resorteth  to  the  other,  openly, 
secretly,  or  slanderously,  maintaining, 
supporting,  or  finding  the  same,  in  any 
wise,  to  the  offence  of  the  people  ? 

Art.  3.  Whether  there  be  any  per- 
son, of  what  estate,  condition,  or  de- 
gree he  be,  that  doth,  in  open  talk  or 
privily,  defend,  maintain,  or  uphold 
the  marriage  of  priests,  encouraging 
or  bolding  any  persons  to  the  defence 
thereof. — Burnet,  II.  Append.  260. 


EJECTION    OF    MARRIED    PRIESTS.  495 

had  sworn  fidelity,  demanding,  as  we  shall  see,  much  subse- 
quent conflicting  legislation.  The  social  complications  result- 
ing from  the  change  of  religion  are  also  indicated  in  the 
request  that  married  nuns  may  be  divorced,  and  that  the 
pretended  wives  of  priests  have  full  liberty  to  marry  again.1 

Everything  being  thus  prepared,  the  purification  of  the 
church  from  married  heretics  was  prosecuted  with  vigor.  Arch- 
bishop Parker  states  that  there  were  in  England  some  16,000 
clergymen,  of  whom  12,000  were  deprived  on  this  account, 
many  of  them  most  summarily ;  some  on  common  report, 
without  trial,  others  without  being  summoned  to  appear 
before  their  judges,  and  others  again  while  lying  in  jail  for 
not  obeying  the  summons.  Some  renounced  their  wives,  and 
were  yet  deprived,  wrhile  those  who  were  deprived  were  also, 
as  we  have  seen,  forced  to  part  with  their  wives.  We  can 
readily  believe  that  the  most  ordinary  forms  of  justice  were 
set  aside,  in  view  of  the  illegal  and  indecorous  haste  of  the 
proceedings  against  the  married  bishops  described  above,  but 
Parker's  estimate  of  the  number  of  sufferers  is  greatly  exagge- 
rated. According  to  Dr.  Tanner,  in  the  diocese  of  Norfolk — 
then  estimated  at  one-eighth  of  the  whole  kingdom — there 
were  only  335  deprivations  on  this  account;  and  at  York,  from 
April  27th  to  December  20th,  1554,  there  were  only  fifty-one 
ejected.2  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  the  list  throughout 
England  would  not  exceed  three  thousand ;  yet  when  to  these 
are  added  the  hosts  who  no  doubt  succeeded  in  retaining 
their  positions  by  a  compliance  with  the  law  in  quietly  put- 
ting away  their  wives,3  it  will  be  seen  that  the  privilege  of 
marriage  had  been  eagerly  improved  by  the  clergy,  and  that 
an  amount  of  misery  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  calculate 
was  caused  bv  the  enforcement  of  the  canons. 


1  Wilkins,  IV.  96-7.  after  to  lead  a  pure,  chast,  and  con- 

■  Burnet,  II.  276,  III.  225-6.  tinent  life  .  .     and  do  here  before  my 

competent  judge   and   ordinary  most 

3  A  specimen  of  the  form  of  restitu-  humbly  require  absolution  of  and 
tion  subscribed  by  those  who  were  re-  from  all  such  censures  and  pains  of 
stored  on  profession  of  amendment ;  the  laws  as  by  my  said  offence  and 
and  repentance  has  been  preserved —  !  ungodly  behavior  I  have  incurred  and 
"  Whereas  ...  I  the  said  Robert  do  j  deserved :  promising  firmly  .  .  .  never 


now  lament  and  bewail  my  life  past, 
and  the  offence  by  me  committed  ;  in- 
tending firmly  by  God's  grace  here- 


to return  to  the  said  Agnes  Staunton 
as  to  my  wife  or  concubine,  &c." — 
(Wilkins,  IV.  104). 


496  THE    ANGLICAN    CHURCH. 

All  this  was  done  by  the  royal  authority,  wielding  the 
ecclesiastical  power  usurped  by  Henry  VIII.  Strictly  speak- 
ing, it  was  highly  irregular  and  uncanonical,  but  as  the  papal 
supremacy  was  yet  in  abeyance  it  could  be  accomplished  by 
no  other  means.  At  last,  however,  the  kingdom  was  ripe  for 
reconciliation  with  Rome.  In  calling  a  parliament,  the  queen 
issued  a  circular  letter  to  the  sheriffs  commanding  them  to 
admonish  the  people  to  return  members  "  of  the  wise,  grave, 
and  Catholic  sort."2  Her  wishes  were  fulfilled,  and  ere  the 
year  was  out  Cardinal  Pole  was  installed  with  full  legatine 
powers,  and  Julius  III.  had  issued  his  Bull  of  Indulgence, 
reuniting  England  to  the  church  from  which  she  had  been 
violently  severed.2  An  obedient  parliament  lost  no  time  in 
repealing  all  statutes  adverse  to  the  claims  of  the  Holy  See, 
but  its  subserviency  had  limits,  and  one  class  largely  inte- 
rested in  the  reforms  of  Henry  had  sufficient  influence  to 
maintain  its  heretical  rights.  The  church  lands  granted  or 
sold  to  laymen  were  not  revendicated.  Though  the  transac- 
tions by  which  they  had  been  acquired  were  wholly  illegal ; 
though  no  duration  of  possession  could  bar  the  imprescripti- 
ble rights  of  the  church,  yet  the  nobles  and  country  gentle- 
men enriched  by  the  spoliation  were  too  numerous  and 
powerful,  and  the  reclamation  of  the  kingdom  was  too  im- 
portant, to  incur  any  peril  by  unseasonably  insisting  on 
reparation  for  Henry's  injustice.  The  abbatial  manors  and 
rich  priories,  the  chantries,  hospitals,  and  colleges  were  there- 
fore left  in  the  impious  hands  of  those  who  had  been  fortu- 
nate enough  to  secure  them,3  and  the  miserable  remnants  of 
the  religious  orders  were  left  to  the  conscience  of  the  queen, 


1  Pari.  Hist.  I.  616. 

2  The  Bull  is  dated  December  24, 
1554  (Wilkins,  IV.  111).— Parliament 
repealed  the  attainder  of  Cardinal 
Pole,  November  22d,  and  on  the  24th 
he  arrived  in  London  as  legate  (Bur- 
net, II.  291-2). 

3  1  and  2  Phil,  and  Mary  c.  8. 
(Pari.  Hist.  I.  624).     The  title  of  the 


was  disposed  to  make  its  obedience 
to  Rome  the  price  for  obtaining  con- 
firmation of  the  abbey  lands.  "  A 
Bill  for  repealing  all  statutes,  articles, 
and  provisoes  made  against  the  See 
Apostolique  of  Rome,  since  the  20th  of 
Henry  VIII.,  and  for  the  establish- 
ment of  all  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical 
possessions  and  hereditaments  con- 
veyed to  the  laity." — In  1555,  a  papal 


bill  shows  that,  though  the  Parliament  j  Bull  was  read  in  parliament,  confirm- 
was   almost   exclusively  Catholic,   it  |  ing  this  arrangement.   (Ibid.  p. '626). 


SEPARATION    OF    THE    MARRIED    CLERGY.       497 

who  made  haste  to  get  rid  of  such  fragments  of  the  spoil  as 
had  been  retained  by  the  crown.1  r 

Cardinal  Pole  was  not  remiss  in  giving  the  sanction  of  the 
papal  authority  to  all  that  had  been  done.  Convoking  a 
synod,  he  issued  in  1555  his  Legatine  Constitutions,  by  which 
all  marriages  of  those  included  in  the  prohibited  orders  were 
declared  null  and  void.  Such  apostates  were  ordered  to  be 
separated  by  ecclesiastical  censures  and  by  whatever  legal  pro- 
cesses might  be  required ;  all  who  dared  to  justify  such  mar- 
riages or  to  obstinately  remain  in  their  unholy  bonds  were  to 
be  rigorously  prosecuted  and  punished  according  to  the  ancient 
canons,  which  were  revived  and  declared  to  be  in  full  force  'in 
order  to  prevent  similar  scandals  for  the  future.2  As  the  queen 
by  special  warrant  had  decreed  that  all  canons  adopted  by 
synods  should  have  the  full  effect  of  laws  binding  on  the 
clergy,  these  constitutions  at  once  restored  matters  to  their 
pristine  condition. 

It  was  easy  to  pass  decrees ;  it  was  doubtless  gratifying  to 
eject  married  priests  by  the  thousand  and  to  grant  their  liv- 
ings to  hungry  reactionaries  or  to  the  crowd  of  needy  church- 
men whom  Italy  had  ever  ready  to  supply  the  spiritual  wants 
and  collect  the  tithes  of  the  faithful.  All  this  was  readily 
accomplished,  but  the  difficulty  lay  in  overcoming  the  eternal 
instincts  of  human  nature.  The  struggle  to  effect  this  com- 
menced at  once. 

It  was,  indeed,  hardly  to  be  expected  that  those  who  had 
entered  into  matrimony  with  the  full  conviction  of  its  sanc- 
tity would  willingly  abandon  all  intercourse  with  their  wives, 
although  they  might  yield  a  forced  assent  to  the  pressure  of 
the  laws,  the  prospect  of  poverty,  and  the  certainty  of  infa- 
mous punishment.  Accordingly  we  find  that  the  necessity  at 
once  arose  of  watching  the  "  reconciled"  priests,  who  con- 
tinued to  do  in  secret  what  they  could  no  longer  practise 
openly.  Some,  indeed,  found  the  restrictions  so  onerous  that 
they  endeavored  to  release  themselves  from  the  bonds  of  the 
church  rather  than  to  submit  longer  to  the  separation  from 


1  2  and  3  Phil,    and   Mary,  c.    4.  i      2  Card.  Poli  Constit.  Legat.  Decret. 
(Pari.  Hist.  pp.  626-8.)  j  v.  (Wilkins,  IV.  800.) 

32 


498 


THE    ANGLICAN   CHURCH. 


their  wives ;  and  this  apparently  threatened  so  great  a  dearth 
in  the  ranks  of  the  clergy  that  Cardinal  Pole,  as  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  in  1556,  forbade  the  withdrawal  of  any  one 
from  the  mysteries  and  functions  of  the  altar,  under  pain  of 
the  law.1 

Notwithstanding  all  this  legislation,  royal,  parliamentary, 
and  ecclesiastical,  the  question  refused  to  settle  itself,  and  the 
convocation  which  assembled  on  the  1st  of  January,  1557, 
was  obliged  to  publish  an  elaborate  series  of  articles,  which 
demonstrated  that  previous  enactments  had  either  not  been 
properly  observed  or  that  they  had  failed  in  effecting  their 
purpose.  Thus  the  prohibition  of  marriage  to  those  in  priests' 
orders  was  formally  renewed.  Such  of  the  married  clergy, 
who  had  undergone  penance  and  had  been  restored,  as  still 
persisted  in  holding  intercourse  with  their  separated  wives, 
were  to  be  deprived  irrevocably  of  their  office  and  only  to  be 
admitted  to  lay  communion — thus  reversing  the  policy  of  Car- 
dinal Pole's  injunctions.  As  all  priests  who  had  been  mar- 
ried were  obnoxious  to  the  people,  they  were  to  be  removed 
from  the  priesthood ;  or,  at  least,  on  account  of  the  scarcity 
of  ministers,  to  act  only  as  curates,  and  to  be  incapable  of 
holding  benefices  until  a  thorough  course  of  penance  should 
have  washed  away  their  sins.  Even  then,  in  no  case  were 
they  to  officiate  in  the  dioceses  wherein  they  had  been  mar- 
ried, but  were  to  be  removed  to  a  distance  of  at  least  sixty 
miles,  and  if  detected  in  any  intercourse  with  their  wives, 
they  were  to  incur  severe  punishment,  a  single  interchange  of 
words  being  sufficient  to  call  down  the  penalty.  To  insure 
the  observance  of  these  rules,  all  synods  were  directed  to 
make  special  inquiry  into  the  lives  of  these  unfortunates,  who 
were  thus  to  exist  under  a  perpetual  surveillance,  at  the 
mercy  of  inimical  spies  and  informers.2  This  may  perhaps 
be  considered  a  moderate  expiation  for  men  who,  in  those 


1  "  That  none  of  those  priests  that 
were,  under  the  pretence  of  lawfull 
matrimony,  married,  and  now  recon- 
ciled, do  privilie  resorte  to  their  pre- 
tensed  wives,  or  suffer  the  same  to  re- 
sorte unto  them.  And  that  those 
priests  do  in  no  wise  henceforth  with- 


drawe  themselves  from  the  mynisterie 
and  office  of  priesthodde  under  the 
paine  of  the  lawes." — Pole's  Injunc- 
tions in  Diocese  of  Gloucester  (Wil- 
kins,  IV.- 146). 

2  Wilkins,  IV.  157. 


DEATH   OF    MART.  499 

days  of  fierce  religious  convictions,  possessed  that  flexibility 
of  faith  which  enabled  them  to  change  their  belief  with  every 
dynastic  accident. 

If*  the  rigid  rules  now  introduced  were  successful  in  no- 
thing else,  they  at  all  events  succeeded  in  restoring  the  old 
troubles  with  the  old  canons.  Denied  the  lawful  gratification 
of  human  instincts,  the  clergy  immediately  returned  to  the 
habits  which  had  acquired  for  them  so  much  odium  in  times 
past,  and  the  rulers  of  the  church  at  once  found  themselves 
embarked  in  the  sempiternal  struggle  with  immorality  in  all 
its  shapes  and  disguises.  The  convocation  of  1557,  which 
issued  the  stringent  regulations  just  quoted,  was  also  obliged 
to  promulgate  articles  concerning  the  residence  of  women 
with  priests,  and  the  punishment  of  licentiousness,  similar  to 
those  which  we  have  seen  reproduced  so  regularly  for  ten 
centuries.  Cardinal  Pole,  too,  in  his  visitation  of  the  same 
year,  directed  inquiries  to  be  made  on  these  points  in  a  man- 
ner which  shows  that  they  were  existing,  and  not  merely  anti- 
cipated evils.1 

Fortunately  for  the  character  of  the  Anglican  clergy,  the 
reign  of  reaction  was  short.  On  the  17th  of  November,  1558, 
Queen  Mary  closed  her  unhappy  life,  and  Cardinal  Pole  fol- 
lowed her  within  sixteen  hours.  The  Marian 'persecution 
had  been  long  enough  and  sharp  enough  to  give  to  heresy  all 
the  attractions  of  martyrdom,  thus  increasing  its  fervor  and 
enlarging  its  circle  of  earnest  disciples ;  and  the  sudden  ter- 
mination of  that  persecution,  before  it  had  time  to  accomplish 
its  work  of  extirpation,  left  the  reformers  more  zealous  and 
dangerous  than  ever.  Heresy  had  likewise  been  favored  by 
the  discontent  of  the  people  arising  from  the  disastrous  and 
expensive  war  with  Prance,  which  aided  the  improvident 
restoration  of  the  church  lands  in  impoverishing  the  exche- 
quer and  in  exacting  heavy  subsidies  from  the  nation,  repaid 
only  by  cruelty  and  misfortune.  Dread  of  Spanish  influence 
also  had  a  firm  hold  of  the  imagination  of  the  masses,  while 
the  church  itself  was  especially  unpopular,  as  the  conviction 


1  Wilkins,  IV.  169. 


500  THE   ANGLICAN   CHURCH. 

was  general  that  the  ill-success  of  Mary's  administration  was 
attributable  to  the  control  exercised  by  ecclesiastics  over  the 
public  affairs.  Under  such  auspices,  the  royal  power  passed 
into  the  hands  of  a  princess  who,  though  by  nature  leaning 
to  the  Catholic  faith  and  disposed  to  tread  in  the  footsteps  of 
her  father,  was  yet  placed  by  the  circumstances  of  her  birth 
in  implacable  hostility  to  Eome,  and  who  held  her  throne 
only  on  the  tenure  of  waging  eternal  warfare  with  reaction. 
The  reformers  felt  that  the  doom  of  Catholicism  was  sealed. 
Emerging  from  their  hiding-places  and  hastening  back  from 
exile,  the  religious  refugees  proceeded  at  once  to  practise  the 
rites  of  Edward  VI.  Elizabeth,  however,  after  ordering 
some  changes  in  the  Eoman  observances,  forbade,  on  the  27th 
of  December,  all  further  innovations  until  the  meeting  of 
Parliament,  which  was  convoked  for  January  23,  1559. 

Parliament  assembled  on  the  appointed  day  and  sat  until 
the  8th  of  May.  It  at  once  passed  acts  resuming  the  ecclesi- 
astical crown  lands  and  restoring  the  royal  supremacy  in 
ecclesiastical  matters,  and  it  repealed  all  of  Mary's  legislation 
concerning  the  power  of  the  papacy.  Several  other  bills  were 
adopted  modifying  the  religion  of  the  kingdom,  with  a  view 
of  discovering  some  middle  term  which  should  unite  the 
people  in  a  common  form  of  belief  and  worship.1  Anxious 
to  avoid  all  extremes,  it  negatived  the  measures  introduced 
by  the  ardent  friends  of  the  Eeformation,  and  among  the 
unsuccessful  attempts  was  one  which  restored  all  priests  who 
had  been  deprived  on  account  of  marriage.  This,  indeed, 
was  laid  aside  by  the  special  command  of  the  queen  herself.2 

The  question  of  clerical  marriage  was  thus  left  in  a  most 
perplexed  and  unsatisfactory  condition.  The  Six  Articles 
had  been  repealed  by  Edward  VI.,  and  had  been  virtually 
revived  by  Mary ;  but  Mary's  efforts  had  been  to  restore  the 
independent  jurisdiction  of  the  church,  and  she  had  therefore 
not  continued  to  regard  the  Six  Articles  as  in  force,  the 
canons  of  synods  and  the  legatine  constitutions  of  Pole  being 
the  law  of  her  ecclesiastical  establishment.      This  was  now 


1  1  Eliz.  c.  1,  2,  4.     (Pari.  Hist.  I.  646-76.) 

2  Burnet,  II.  386-95. 


CONNIVANCE    AT    SACERDOTAL    MARRIAGE.       501 


all  swept  away,  a  statute  to  fill  the  void  was  refused,  and  men 
were  left  to  draw  their  own  deductions  and  act  at  their  own 
peril.  Elizabeth  refused  the  sanction  of  law  to  sacerdotal 
marriage,  and  would  not  restore  the  deprived  priests,  yet  she 
did  not  enforce  any  prohibitory  regulations,  and  even  promoted 
many  married  men.  Dr.  Parker,  the  religious  adviser  of 
Anne  Boleyn  who  had  left  him  in  charge  of  her  daughter's 
spiritual  education,  was  married,  and  one  of  Elizabeth's  ear- 
liest acts  was  to  nominate  him  for  the  vacant  primacy  of  Can- 
terbury, which  after  long  resistance  he  was  forced  to  accept. 
The  uncertainty  of  the  situation  and  the  anxiety  of  those 
interested  are  well  illustrated  by  a  letter  to  Dr.  Parker,  dated 
April  30th,  just  before  the  rising  of  Parliament,  from  Dr. 
Sands,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Worcester:  "  The  bill  is  in  hand 
to  restore  men  to  their  livings ;  how  it  will  speed  I  know  not 
.  .  .  Nihil  est  statutnm  de  conjugio  sacerdotum,  sed  tanquam 
relictum  in  medio.  Lever  was  married  now  of  late.  The 
queen's  majesty  will  wink  at  it,  but  not  stablish  it  by  law, 
which  is  nothing  else  but  to  bastard  our  children."1 

At  length  Elizabeth  made  up  her  mind,  and  in  the  exercise 
of  her  royal  supremacy  she  asked  for  no  act  of  Parliament 
to  confirm  her  decree.  Archbishop  Parker  has  the  credit  of 
being  the  most  efficient  agent  in  overcoming  her  repugnance 
to  the  measure,  and  the  ungracious  manner  in  which  she 
finally  accorded  the  permission  shows  how  strong  were  the 
prejudices  which  he  had  to  encounter.  In  June,  1559,  she 
issued  a  series  of  "  Injunctions  to  the  Clergy  and  Laity" 


1  Burnet,  II.  Append.  332. — Sanders 
does  not  fail  to  matte  the  most  of  this 
refusal  to  legalize  priestly  marriage  by 
act  of  Parliament,  and  of  the  hesita- 
tion which  rendered  the  final  decision 
a  mere  toleration  and  not  an  approval. 
— "  Ce  nouveau  clerge  compose  d'Apos- 
tats  etde  seculiers  ne  songeoitqu'aux 
nopces  :  il  tacha  de  faire  approuver 
par  les  loix  le  mariage  des  eveques  et 
des  chanoines  et  des  autres  ministres 
de  leurs  eglises ;  et  de  declarer  legitimes 
les  enfans  qui  en  estoient  issus ;  mais 
il  n'en  put  venir  a  bout,  parceque  la 
chose  paroissoit  indigne  du  ministere 
des  autels  et  prejudiciable  a  I'Estat. 


Edouard  VI.  par  arrest  du  Parlement 
avoit  casse  toutes  les  prohibitions  ca- 
noniques  et  civiles  touchant  le  mariage 
des  religieux  et  des  clercs.  Marie  fit 
revoquer  cet  arrest ;  maintenant  les 
Novateurs  font  tous  leurs  efforts  pour 
en  obtenir  le  retablissement,  mais  en 
vain.  Cependant  par  tolerance  et  non 
par  edict  ils  ne  laissent  pas  de  se  ma- 
rier  par  tout  le  royaume,  une,  deux 
et  jusqu'  a  trois  fois,  malgre  les  ca- 
nons. .  .  .  Corame  done  ils  se  trouvent 
chargez  d 'enfans,  il  faut  que  pour  les 
elever  et  les  enrichir,  ils  pillent  et  les 
peuples  et  les  benefices." — Hist,  du 
Schisme,  pp.  453-4. 


502 


THE   ANGLICAN    CHURCH 


which  restored  the  national  religion  to  nearly  the  same  posi- 
tion as  that  adopted  by  Edward  VI.,  and  it  is  curious  to 
observe  that  when  she  comes  to  speak  of  sacerdotal  matri- 
mony, she  carefully  avoids  the  responsibility  of  sanctioning 
it  herself,  but  assumes  that  the  law  of  Edward  is  still  in  force. 
All  that  she  does,  therefore,  is  to  surround  it  with  such  limita- 
tions and  restrictions  as  shall  prevent  its  abuse,  and  although 
this  form  had  perhaps  the  advantage  of  establishing  the  le- 
gality of  all  pre-existing  marriages,  yet  the  regulations  pro- 
mulgated were  degrading  in  the  highest  degree,  and  the  reason 
assigned  for  permitting  it  could  only  be  regarded  as  affixing 
a  stigma  on  every  pastor  who  confessed  the  weakness  of  his 
flesh  by  seeking  a  wife.1 

From  the  temper  of  these  regulations  it  is  manifest  that  if 
Elizabeth  yielded  to  the  advice  of  her  counsellors  and  to  the 
pressure  of  the  times,  she  did  not  give  up  her  private  con- 
victions or  prejudices,   and   that   she  desired  to  make  the 


1  Royal  Injunctions  of  1559,  Art. 
xxix.  "  Although  there  be  no  prohi- 
bition by  the  word  of  God,  nor  any 
example  of  the  primitive  church,  but 
that  the  priests  and  ministers  of  the 
church  may  lawfully,  for  the  avoiding 
of  fornication,  have  an  honest  and 
sober  wife,  and  that  for  the  same 
purpose  the  same  was  by  act  of  Parlia- 
ment in  the  time' of  our  dear  brother 
King  Edward  the  Sixth  made  lawful, 
whereupon  a  great  number  of  the 
clergy  of  this  realm  were  married  and 
so  continue  ;  yet,  because  there  hath 
grown  offence  and  some  slander  to 
the  church,  by  lack  of  discreet  and 
sober  behavior  in  many  ministers  of 
the  church,  both  in  chusing  of  their 
wives  and  undiscreet  living  with 
them,  the  remedy  whereof  is  neces- 
sary to  be  sought ;  it  is  thought 
therefore  very  necessary  that  no  man- 
ner of  priest  or  deacon  shall  hereafter 
take  to  his  wife  any  manner  of  woman 
without  the  advice  and  allowance 
first  had  upon  good  examination  by 
the  bishop  of  the  same  diocese  and 
two  justices  of  the  peace  of  the  same 
shire  dwelling  next  to  the  place  where 
the  same  woman  hath  made  her  most 
abode  before  her  marriage  ;  nor  with- 
out the  goodwill  of  the  parents  of  the 


said  woman  if  she  have  any  living,  or 
two  of  the  next  of  her  kinsfolks,  or  for 
lack  of  the  knowledge  of  such,  of  her 
master  or  mistress  where  she  serveth. 
And  before  she  shall  be  contracted  in 
any  place,  he  shall  make  a  good  and 
certain  proof  thereof  to  the  minister 
or  to  the  congregation  assembled  for 
that  purpose,  which  shall  be  upon 
some  holyday  where  divers  may  be 
present.  And  if  any  shall  do  other- 
wise, that  then  they  shall  not  be  per- 
mitted to  minister  either  the  word  or 
the  sacraments  of  the  church,  nor 
shall  be  capable  of  any  ecclesiastical 
benefice.  And  for  the  marriages  of 
any  bishops,  the  sjfme  shall  be  allowed 
and  approved  by  the  metropolitan  of 
the  province  and  also  by  such  com- 
missioners as  the  Queen's  Majesty 
thereunto  shall  appoint.  And  if  any 
master  or  dean  or  any  head  of  any 
college  shall  purpose  to  marry,  the 
same  shall  not  be  allowed  but  by 
such  to  whom  the  visitation  of  the 
same  doth  properly  belong,  who  shall 
in  any  wise  provide  that  the  same 
turn  not  to  the  hindrance  of  their 
house."— (Wilkins,  IV.  186.) 

See  also  a  letter  of  Theodore  Beza, 
Zurich  Letters,  p.  247  (Parker  Soc. 
Publications). 


THE    THIRTY-NINE    ARTICLES.  503 

marriage  of  her  clergy  as  unpopular  and  disagreeable  as 
possible.  Even  the  haughty  spirit  of  the  Tudor,  however, 
could  not  restrain  the  progress  which  had  now  fairly  set  in. 
Those  around  her  who  controlled  the  public  affairs  were  all 
committed  to  the  Eeformation,  and  were  resolved  that  every 
point  gained  should  be  made  secure.  When,  therefore,  in 
1563,  there  was  published  a  recension  of  the  Forty-two 
Articles  issued  by  Edward  VI.  in  1552,  resulting  in  the  well- 
known  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  care 
was  taken  that  the  one  relating  to  the  liberty  of  marriage 
should  be  made  more  emphatic  than  before.  Not  content 
with  the  simple  proposition  of  the  original  that  "  Bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons  are  not  commanded  by  God's  law  either 
to  vow  the  estate  of  a  single  life,  or  to  abstain  from  marriage," 
the  emphatic  corollary  was  added,  "  Therefore  it  is  lawful  for 
them  as  for  all  other  Christian  men  to  marry  at  their  own 
discretion,  as  they  shall  judge  the  same  to  serve  better  to 
Godliness"1 — such  as  we  find  it  preserved  to  the  present  day. 
This  was  not  an  empty  form.  Not  only  the  right  to  marry 
at  their  own  discretion,  thjis  expressly  declared,  did  much  to 
relieve  them  from  the  degrading  conditions  laid  down  by  the 
queen,  but  the  revival  and  strengthening  of  the  article  marked 
a  victory  gained  over  the  reaction.  When,  in  1559,  the  queen 
appointed  a  commission  to  visit  all  the  churches  of  England 
and  enforce  compliance  with  the  order  of  things  then  existing, 
the  articles  prepared  for  its  guidance  enjoin  no  investigation 
into  opinions  respecting  priestly  marriage,  showing  that  to  be 
an  open  question,  concerning  which  every  man  might  hold 
his  private  belief.2    After  the  adoption  of  the  Thirty-nine  Ar- 


•  In  the  English  version,  as  given 
by  Burnet  (Vol.  II.  Append.  217), 
there  are  42  articles,  of  which  this 
is   the    31st.      In   the    Latin    edition 


of  Supererogation  (Arts.  xi.  and  xix.) 
would  have  sufficed,  so  far  as  principle 
was  concerned. 

2  Wilkins,  IV.  189-91.— This  com- 


(Wilkins,  IV.  23(3),  there  are  but  39 

v  ..  ,        ',  .     ,    .      \,      ooi       t  •  i    •      mission   was    the    commencement   of 

articles,  this  being  the  32d,  which  is  i  ,,      „ ,  „.  .   r .     .        ',       < 


the    arrangement    according    to    the 
standard  of  the  Anglican  church. 

This  specific  declaration  in  a  special 
article  marks  the  necessity  which  was 
felt  to  place  the  matter  beyond  con- 
troversy, as  a  rule  of  practice.     The 


the  Court  of  High  Commission,  which 
played  so  lamentable  a  part  in  the 
troubles  of  the  succeeding  reigns. 
The  result  of  its  visitation  in  1559 
shows  how  little  real  conviction  ex- 
isted among  the  clergy  who  had  been 


Articles  on  Justification  and  Works    e*P°f+e d  to+the  caP^ious  persecutions 

i  of  alternating   rulers.     Out   of  9400 


504  THE    ANGLICAN    CHURCH. 

tides,  however,  this  latitude  was  no  longer  allowed.  In  1567 
Archbishop  Parker's  articles  of  instruction  for  the  visitation 
of  that  year  enumerate,  among  the  heretical  doctrines  to  be 
inquired  after,  the  assertion  that  the  Word  of  God  commands 
abstinence  from  marriage  on  the  part  of  ministers  of  the 
church.1  With  both  Catholics  and  Protestants  the  matter 
had  thus  become  definitely  a  point  of  belief. 

Yet  Elizabeth  never  overcame  her  repugnance  to  the  mar- 
riage of  the  clergy,  nor  is  it,  perhaps,  to  be  wondered  at 
when  we  consider  her  general  aversion  to  sanctioning  in 
others  the  matrimony  which  she  was  herself  always  toying 
with  and  never  contracting.  When  she  made  her  favorites  of 
both  sexes  suffer  for  any  legalized  indiscretions  of  the  kind, 
it  is  scarcely  surprising  that  she  always  looked  with  disfavor 
on  those  of  the  clergy  who  availed  themselves  of  the  privi- 
lege which  circumstances  had  extorted  from  her,  and  which 
she  would  fain  have  withheld.  When  Archbishop  Parker 
ventured  to  remonstrate  with  her  on  her  popish  tendencies, 
she  sharply  told  him  that  "she  repented  of  having  made  any 
married  bishops."  This  was  a  cutting  rejoinder,  but  even 
more  pointed  was  the  insolence  from  which  his  life-long  ser- 
vices could  not  protect  his  wife.  The  first  time  the  queen 
visited  the  archiepiscopal  palace,  on  her  departure  she  turned 
to  thank  Mrs.  Parker.  "And  you — madam  I  may  not  call 
you,  mistress  I  am  ashamed  to  call  you,  so  I  know  not  what 
to  call  you — but,  howsoever,  I  thank  you."  So  in  Ipswich, 
on  her  progress  of  1561,  she  found  great  fault  with  the  mar- 
riage of  the  clergy,  and  especially  with  the  number  of  wives 
and  children  in  cathedrals  and  colleges;  and  she  proceeded 
forthwith  to  banish  them  by  an  order  addressed  to  the  Arch- 
bishops of  Canterbury  and  York,  commanding  that  in  future 
no  woman  should  resort  to  the  lodgings  of  such  institutions 
on  any  pretext.2     To  these  influences,  perhaps,  we  may  attri- 


beneficiaries  in  England  under  Mary,  I  to  assume  that  the  higher  dignitaries 


but  14  bishops,  6  abbots,  12  deans,  12 
archdeacons,  15  heads  of  colleges,  50 
prebendaries, and  80  rectors  of  parishes 
had  abandoned  their  preferment  on 
account  of  Protestantism  (Burnet,  Vol. 


at  least  had  not  been  allowed  to  retain 
their  positions. 

1  Wilkins,  IV.  253. 

2  Strickland,  Life  of  Queen  Eliza- 


II.  Append.  217),  and  of  these  it  is  fair  I  beth,  chap.  iv. 


DISREPUTE    OF    SACERDOTAL    MARRIAGE.       505 

bute  the  last  relic  of  clerical  celibacy  enforced  among  Pro- 
testants, that  of  the  Felldws  of  the  English  Universities. 

The  same  spirit  which  rendered  the  marriage  of  a  pastor 
dependent  on  the  approbation  of  the  neighboring  squires 
caused  the  retention  of  ancient  rules,  which  prove  the  pro- 
found distrust  still  entertained  as  to  the  discretion  and  morality 
of  the  clergy,  and  the  difficulty  with  which  the  Anglican 
church  threw  off  the  traditions  of  Catholicism.  Thus,  even 
in  1571,  Grindal,  Archbishop  of  York,  promulgates  a  modifi- 
cation of  the  canon  of  Mcaea,  forbidding  the  residence  with 
unmarried  ministers  of  women  under  the  age  of  sixty,  except 
relatives  closely  connected  by  blood.1 

Although  sacerdotal  marriage  was  now  fully  sanctioned  by 
the  organic  canon  law  of  the  church,  yet  it  was  still  exposed 
to  serious  impediments  of  a  worldly  character.  When  thus 
frowned  upon  by  her  who  was  in  reality,  if  not  in  name, 
Supreme  Head  of  the  church ;  when  the  wife  of  the  primate 
himself  could  be  exposed  to  such  indelible  impertinence ; 
when  the  marriage  of  every  unfortunate  parson  was  subjected 
to  degrading  conditions,  and  when  it  was  assumed  that  his 
bride  must  be  a  woman  at  service,  the  influences  affecting  the 
matrimonial  alliances  of  the  clergy  must  have  been  of  the 
worst  description.  The  higher  classes  of  society  would  natu- 
rally model  their  opinions  on  those  of  the  sovereign,  while 
the  lower  orders  had  not  as  yet  shaken  off  the  prejudices  in 
favor  of  celibacy,  implanted  in  them  by  the  custom  of  cen- 
turies. Making  due  allowance  for  polemical  bitterness,  there 
is  therefore  no  doubt  much  truth  in  the  sarcastic  account 
which  Sanders  gives  of  the  wives  of  the  Elizabethan  clergy. 
Taking  advantage  of  the  refusal  of  Parliament  to  formally 
legalize  such  marriages — a  refusal  which  could  not  but  greatly 
affect  the  minds  of  the  people — he  assumes  that  the  wives 
were  concubines  and  the  children  illegitimate  in  the  eyes  of 
the  law ;  consequently  decent  women  refused  to  undergo  the 
obloquy  attached  to  a  union  with  a  minister  of  the  church, 
who  was   therefore  forced  to  take  as  his  spouse  any  one 


1  "No  minister  (being  unmarried)  I  be  their  mother,  sister,  aunt,  or  niece.' 
to  keep  in  his  house  any  woman  un-  J  — Wilkins,  IV.  269. 
der  the  age  of  sixty  years,  except  she  j 


506 


THE   ANGLICAN   CHURCH 


who  would  consent  to  accept  him.  The  wives  of  prelates 
were  ostracized;  not  received  at  court,  and  sharing  in  no 
way  the  dignities  of  their  husbands,  they  were  kept  closely 
at  home  for  the  mere  gratification  of  animal  passion.  The 
members  of  universities  had  been  wholly  unsuccessful  in  their 
efforts  to  obtain  the  same  license,  which  was  only  granted  to 
the  heads  of  colleges,  under  condition  that  their  wives  should 
reside  elsewhere,  and  should  rarely  pollute  with  their  presence 
the  learned  precincts.1 

Such  a  state  of  feeling  could  not  but  react  most  injuriously 
on  the  character  of  the  great  body  of  the  clergy.  It  deprived 
them  of  the  respect  due  to  their  sacred  calling,  and  -conse- 
quently reduced  them  to  the  level  of  such  scant  respect  as 
was  accorded  to  them.  How  long  this  lasted,  and  how  mate- 
rially it  degraded  the  ministers  of  Christ  as  a  body,  cannot 
be  questioned  by  any  one  who  recalls  the  description  of  the 
rural  clergy  in  the  brilliant  third  chapter  of  Macaulay's  His- 
tory of  England.  In  1686  an  author  complains  that  the 
rector  is  an  object  of  contempt  and  ridicule  for  all  above  the 
rank  of  the  neighboring  peasants ;  that  gentle  blood  would 


1  "  Or,  non  seulement  les  Catholiques 
mais  les  Protestans  raesme  refusoient 
de  telles  personnes  pour  leurs  gendres. 

Premierement  a  cause  de  la  honte 
qui  est  attachee  a  la  qualite  de  femme 
de  Pretre. 

En  second  lieu,parceque  par  les  loix 
du  Royaumepes  manages  ne  sont  point 
permis,  et  par  consequent  les  enfans 
qui  en  naissent  sont  illegitiines. 

En  troisieme  lieu,  c'est  que  les  fem- 
mes  et  les  enfans.de  ces  gens-la  n'ont 
aucune  part  au  rang  et  a  la  dignite  de 
leurs  maris  et  de  leurs  peres  ;  car  la 
femme  d'un  Archeveque,  d'un  Eveque 
ou  d'un  Prelat  Anglais  ne  participe 
pas  plus  aux  hooneurs  de  son  mari 
que  sa  concubine.  Aussi  la  Reine  ni 
les  Princesses  ne  recoivent  point  les 
visites  des  femmes  mesme  des  Arche- 
veques ;  de  sorte  que  leurs  epoux  sont 
contraints  de  les  garder  chez  eux 
comme  des  secours  d'intemperance. 
Les  honnestes  filles  dedaignant  done 
de  si  desavantageux  manages,  ils  es- 
toient  obligez  de  prendre  des  femmes 


telles  qu'ils  les  rencontroient.  Le  Ma- 
gistrat  Civil  refrena  encore  cette  li- 
cence. Les  suppots  des -Universitez, 
qui  sont  en  grand  nombre  en  Angle- 
terre,  corrompus  par  l'oisivete  et  par 
l'abondance,  vouloient  se  prevaloir  du 
temps,  et  se  marier ;  mais  l'on  y  trouva 
encore  trop  d'inconvenient ;  de  sorte 
que  l'on  restraignit  cette  liberte  aux 
seuls  Principaux,  a  condition  toutefois 
Que  leurs  femmes  logeroient  hors  des 
Colleges  et  n'y  entreroient  que  rare- 
ment." — Hist,  du  Schisme,  pp.  455-6. 
The  only  edition  of  Sanders's  work 
to  which  I  have  access  is  the  trans- 
lation of  Maucroix  (Paris,  1676),  in 
which  the  savage  crudities  of  the  ori- 
ginal are  somewhat  softened.  Of  course 
much  allowance  must  be  made  for  the 
statements  of  so  keen  a  partisan,  and 
one  who  had  suffered  so  much  from 
those  whom  he  satirized,  yet  he  was  a 
man  of  too  much  shrewdness  to  make 
statements  which  his  contemporaries 
could 'recognize  as  entirely  destitute 
of  foundation. 


EFFECTS    ON    THE    ENGLISH    CLERGY 


507 


be  held  polluted  by  any  connection  with  the  church,  and  that 
girls  of  good  family  were  taught  with  equal  earnestness  not  to 
marry  clergymen,  nor  to  sacrifice  their  reputation  by  amorous 
indiscretions  —  two  misfortunes  which  were  commonly  re- 
garded as  equal.1 

Thus  eagerly  accepted  and  grudgingly  bestowed,  the  privi- 
lege of  marriage  established  itself  in  the  Church  of  England 
by  connivance  rather  than  as  a  right;  and  the  evil  influences 
of  the  prejudices  thus  fostered  were  not  extinguished  for 
many  generations. 


1  A  causidico,  medicastro,  ipsaque 
artificuin  farragine,  ecclesiae  rector  aut 
vicarius  contemnitur  et  fit  ludibrio. 
Gentis  et  fauriliae  nitor  sacris  ordini- 
bus  pollutus  cense  til  r  :  fceminisque 
natalitio  insignibus  unicuni  inculca- 
tur  ssepius  prgeceptum,  ne  modestiae 
naufragiuui  faciant,  aut  (quod  idem 
auribus  tarn  delicatulis  sonat)  ne  ele- 
rico  se  nuptas  dari  patiantur. — T. 
Wood,  Anglise  Notitia  (Macaulay's 
Hist.  Engl.  chap.  in.). 


Lord  Macaulay  attributes  the  de- 
graded position  of  the  clergy  to  their 
indigence  and  want  of  influence. 
These  causes  doubtless  had  their  ef- 
fect, but  the  peculiar  repugnance  to- 
wards clerical  marriage  ascribed  to  all 
respectable  women  had  a  deeper  origin 
than  simply  the  beggarly  stipends 
attached  to  the  majority  of  English 
livings. 


L  I  B  R  A  U  V 

UN  J  v  kiisitv  «» 
CALIFORNIA. 


XXVIII. 
THE  SCOTTISH  REFORMATION. 

The  contest  which,  secured  the  freedom  of  marriage  for  the 
Anglican  clergy  was  prolonged  and  intricate.  The  question 
was  simpler  in  Scotland,  where  the  Eeformation  was  not  ex- 
posed to  vicissitudes  so  numerous  and  so  abrupt.  It  need, 
therefore,  but  briefly  detain  our  attention. 

Lollardism  had  not  been  confined  to  the  southern  portion  of 
the  Island.  It  had  penetrated  into  Scotland,  and  had  re- 
ceived the  countenance  of  those  whose  position  and  influence 
were  well  calculated  to  aid  in  its  dissemination  among  the 
people.  In  1494,  thirty  of  these  heretics,  known  as  "the 
Lollards  of  Kyle,"  were  prosecuted  before  James  IV.  by 
Eobert  Blacater,  Archbishop  of  Glasgow.  Their  station  may 
be  estimated  from  the  fact  that  they  escaped  the  punishment 
due  t£  their  sins  by  the  favor  of  the  monarch,  "  for  divers  of 
them  were  his  great  familiars."  The  thirty-four  articles  of 
accusation  brought  against  them  are  mostly  vVickliffite  in 
tendency,  and  their  views  on  the  question  of  celibacy  are 
manifested  in  the  twenty-second  article  which  accuses  them 
of  asserting  "  That  Priests  may  have  wives  according  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Law  and  of  the  Primitive  Christian 
Church."1 

The  soil  was  thus  ready  for  the  plough  of  the  Eeformation ; 
while  the  temper  of  the  Scottish  race  gave  warrant  that  when 
the  mighty  movement  should  reach  them,  it  would  be  marked 
by  that  stern  and  uncompromising  spirit  which  alone  could 
satisfy  conscientious  and  fiery  bigots,  who  would  regard  all 
half-measures  as  pacts  with  Satan.     Nor  was  there  lacking 


Knox,  History  of  tlie  Reformation  in  Scotland,  p.  3  (Ed.  1609) 


CORRUPTION    OF    THE    SCOTTISH    CHURCH.       509 

ample  cause  to  -excite  in  the  minds  of  all  men  the  desire  for 
a  sweeping  and  effectual  reform.  Corruption  had  extended 
through  every,  fibre  of  the  Scottish  church  as  foul  and  as 
all-pervading  as  that  which  we  have  traced  throughout  the 
rest  of  Christendom. 

Not  long  after  the  year  1530,  and  before  the  new  heresy 
had  obtained  a  foothold,  William  Arith,  a  Dominican,  ventured 
to  assail  the  vices  of  his  fellow  churchmen.  In  a  sermon 
preached  at  St.  Andrews,  with  the  approbation  of  the  heads 
of  the  universities,  he  alluded  to' the  false  miracles  with  which 
the  people  were  deceived,  and  the  abuses  practised  at  shrines 
to  which  credulous  devotion  was  invited.  "  As  of  late  dayes," 
he  proceeded,  "our  Lady  of  Karsgreng  hath  hopped  from  one 
green  hillock  to  another :  But,  honest  men  of  St.  Andrewes, 
if  ye  love  your  wives  and  daughters,  hold  them  at  home,  or 
else  send  them  in  good  honest  company ;  for  if  ye  knew  wrhat 
miracles  were  wrought  there,  ye  would  thank  neither  God 
nor  our  Lady."  In  another  sermon,  arguing  that  the  dis- 
orders of  the  clergy  should  be  subjected  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  civil  authorities,  he  introduced  an  anecdote  respecting 
Prior  Patrick  Hepburn,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Murray.  That 
prelate  once,  in  merry  discourse  with  his  gentlemen,  asked  of 
them  the  number  of  their  mistresses,  and  what  proportion 
of  the  fair  dames  were  married.  The  first  who  answered  con- 
fessed to  five,  of  whom  two  were  bound  in  wedlock  ;  the  next 
boasted  of  seven,  with  three  married  women  among  them ; 
and  so  on  until  the  turn  came  to  Hepburn  himself,  who,  proud 
of  his  bonnes  fortunes,  declared  that  although  he  was  the 
youngest  man  there,  his  mistresses  numbered  twelve,  of 
whom  seven  were  men's  wives.1  Yet  Arith  was  a  good 
Catholic,  who,  on  being  driven  from  Scotland  for  his  plain 
speaking,  suffered  imprisonment  in  England  under  Henry 
VIII.  for  maintaining  the  supremacy  of  the  pope. 

How  little  concealment  was  thought  requisite  with  regard 
to  these  scandals  is  exemplified  in  the  case  of  AlexaiKjer 
Ferrers,  which  occurred  about  the  same  time.  Taken  prisoner 
by  the  English  and  immured  for  seven  years  in  the  Tower  of 


1  Knox,  pp.  15-16. 


510  THE    SCOTTISH    REFORMATION. 

London,  he  returned  home  to  find  that  his  wife  had  been  con- 
soled and  his  substance  dissipated  in  his  absence  by  a  neigh- 
boring priest,  for  the  which  cause  he  not  unnaturally  "  spake 
more  liberally  of  priests  than  they  could  bear."  By  this  time 
heresy  was  spreading,  and  severe  measures  of  repression  were 
considered  necessary.  It  therefore  was  not  difficult  to  have 
the  man's  disrespectful  remarks  construed  as  savoring  of  Lu- 
theranism,  and  he  was  accordingly  brought  up  for  trial  at  St. 
Andrews.  The  first  article  of  accusation  read  to  him  was 
that  he  despised  the  Mass,  whereto  he  answered,  "  I  heare 
more  Masses  in  eight  dayes  than  three  bishops  there  sitting 
say  in  a  yeare."  The  next  article  accused  him  of  contemning 
the  sacraments.  "  The  priests,"  replied  he,  "  were  the  most 
contemnors  of  the  sacraments,  especially  of  matrimony." 
"And  that  he  witnessed  by  many  of  the  priests  there  present, 
and  named  the  man's  wife  with  whom  they  had  meddled,  and 
especially  Sir  John  Dungwaill,  who  had  seven  years  together 
abused  his  own  wife  and  consumed  his  substance,  and  said : 
because  I  complain  of  such  injuries,  I  am  here  summoned 
and  accused  as  one  that  is  worthy  to  be  burnt :  For  God's 
sake,  said  he,  will  ye  take  wives  of  your  own,  that  I  and 
others  whom  ye  have  abused  may  be  revenged  on  you." 
Old  Gawain  Dunbar,  Bishop  of  Aberdeen,  not  relishing  this 
public  accusation,  sought  to  justify  himself,  exclaiming, 
"Carle,  thou  shaft  not  know  my  wife;"  but  the  prisoner 
turned  the  tables  on  him,  "  My  lord,  ye  are  too  old,  but  by 
the  grace  of  God  I  shall  drink  with  your  daughter  or  I  de- 
part." "  And  thereat  there  was  smiling  of  the  "best  and  loud 
laughter  of  some,  for  the  bishop  had  a  daughter  married  with 
Andrew  Balfour  in  that  town."  The  prelates  who  sat  in  judg- 
ment found  that  they  were  exchanging  places  with  the 
accused,  and  fearful  of  further  revelations  from  the  reckless 
Alexander, .commanded  him  to  depart;  but  he  refused,  unless 
each  one  should  contribute  something  to  replace  the  goods 
which  his  wife's  paramour  had  consumed,  and  finally,  to  stop 
his  evil  tongue,  they  paid  him  and  bade  him  begone.1  ' 

All  prelates,  however,  were  not  so  sensitive.     When  Car- 


Knox,  pp.  l(j-17. 


PUBLIC    SCANDALS    OF    THE    PRELATES 


511 


dinal  Beatoun,  Archbishop  of  St.  Andrews,  primate  of  Scot- 
land, and  virtual  governor  of  the  realm,  about  the  year  1546 
married  his  eldest  daughter  to  the  eldest  son  of  the  Earl  of 
Crawford,  he  caused  the  nuptials  to  be  celebrated  with  regal 
magnificence,  and  in  the  marriage  articles,  signed  with  his 
own  hand,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  call  her  ."my  daughter."  It 
is  not  difficult,  therefore,  to  credit  the  story  that  the  night 
before  his  assassination  was  passed  with  his  mistress,  Marion 
Ogilby,  who  was  seen  leaving  his  chamber  not  long  before 
Norman  Leslie  and  Kirkaldy  of  Grange  forced  their  way  into 
his  castle.1  His  successor  in  the  see  of  St.  Andrews,  John 
Hamilton,  was  equally  notorious  for  his  licentiousness ;  and 
men  wondered,  riot  at  his  immorality,  but  at  his  taste  in  pre- 
ferring to  all  liis  other  concubines  one  whose  only  attraction 
seemed  to  be  the  zest  given  to  sin  by  the  fact  that  she  was  the 
wife  of  one  of  his  kindred.2 

This  is  testimony  from  hostile  witnesses,  and  we  might  per- 
haps impugn  their  evidence  on  that  ground,  were  it  not  that 
the  Catholic  Church  of  Scotland  itself  admitted  the  aban- 
doned morals  of  its  members  when  the  rapid  progress  of  Cal- 
vinism at  length  drove  it  in  self-defence  to  attempt  a  reform 
which  was  its  only  chance  of  salvation.  In  the  last  Parliament 
held  by  James  Y.  before  his  death  in  1542,  an  act  was  passed 
exhorting  the  prelates  and  ecclesiastics  in  general  to  take  mea- 
sures "  for  reforming  of  ther  ly.vis,  and  for  avoyding  of  the 
opin  sclander  that  is  gevin  to  the  haill  estates  throucht  the 
spirituale  mens  ungodly  and  dissolut  lyves."3  Nothing  was 
then  done  in  spite  of  this  solemn  warning,  though  the  counte- 
nance afforded  to  the  Eeformers  by  the  Eegent  Arran,  strength- 
ened by  his  alliance  with  Henry  VIIL,  was  daily  causing  the 
heresy  to  assume  more  fearful  proportions.  "When,  there- 
fore, the  Catholic  party,  rallying  after  the  murder  of  Cardinal 
Beatoun,  at  length  triumphed  with  the  aid  of  France,  and  sent 


•  Buchanan.  Rer.  Scot.  Hist.  Lib. 
xv.  Robertson,  Hist,  of  Scot.  B.  II.— 
Knox,  71-2. 

2  "  In  omnia  vitia  prseceps  ierat,  e 
multis  concubinis,  banc  Sernpliam, 
nee  forma  decoram,  nee  fama  alioqui 


integram,  nee  alia  re  quam  proca- 
citate  insignem,  a  marito,  propinquo 
suo  et  gentili,  abdi\ctam,  prope  in 
uxoris  justae  loco  habebat."  —  Bu- 
chanan. Lib.  xv. 

3  Wilkins,  IV.  207. 


512  THE    SCOTTISH    REFORMATION. 

the  young  Queen  of  Scots  to  marry  Francis  II.,  they  seemed 
to  recognize  that  they  could  only  maintain  their  advantage 
by  meeting  public  opinion  in  endeavoring  to  reform  the 
church.  Accordingly,  in  November,  1549,  a  council  was  con- 
voked at  Edinburgh,  of  which  the  first  canon  declares  that 
the  licentiousness  of  the  clergy  had  given  rise  to  the  gravest 
scandals,  to  repress  which  the  rules  enjoined  by  the  council 
of  Bale  must  be  strictly  enforced  and  universally  obeyed. 
The  second  canon  is  no  ]ess  significant  in  ordering  that  pre- 
lates and  other  ecclesiastics  shall  not  live  with  their  illegiti- 
mate children,  nor  provide  for  them  or  promote  them  in  the 
paternal  churches,  nor  marry  their  daughters  to  barons  by 
endowing  them  with  the  patrimony  of  Christ,  nor  cause  their 
sons  to  be  made  barons  by  the  same  means.1 

This  was  of  small  avail.  Ten  years  afterwards,  the  pro- 
gress of  heresy  becoming  ever  more  alarming,  another  council 
was  held  in  March,  1559,  to  devise  means  to  put  a  stop  to  the 
encroachments  of  the  enemy.  To  this  assembly  the  Catholic 
nobles  addressed  an  earnest  prayer  for  a  reformation.  After 
alluding  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Parliament  of  1542,  they 
add,  "And  siclyk  remembring  in  cliverss  of  the  lait  pro- 
vinciale  counsales  haldin  within  this  realm,  that  poynt  has 
been  treittet  of,  and  sindrie  statutis  synodale  maid  therupon, 
of  the  quhilks  nevertheless  thar  hes  folowit  nan  or  litill  fruitt 
as  yitt,  bot  rathare  the  said  estate  is  deteriorate  ...  it  is  maist 
expedient  therefore  that  thai  presentlie  condescend  to  seik 
reformation  of  thir  lyvis  .  .  .  and  naymlie  that  oppin  and 
manifest  sins  and  notor  offencis  be  forborn  and  abstenit  fra  in 
tyme  to  cum."  In  this  request  they  had  been  anticipated  by 
the  Keformers,  who,  the  previous  year,  in  a  supplication  ad- 
dressed to  the  queen-regent,  included  among  their  demands 
"  That  the  wicked,  slanderous  and  detestable  life  of  Prelats 
and  of  the  State  Ecclesiasticall  may  be  reformed,  that  the 
people  by  them  have  not  occasion  (as  of  many  dayes  they 
have  had)  to  contemne  their  Ministrie  and  the  Preaching 
whereof  they  should  be  Messengers." 

The  council,  thus  urged  by  friend  and  foe,  recognized  the 


Concil.  Edinburgeus.  ami.  1549,  can.  1,  2.     (Wilkins,  IV.  48.) 


CONDITION    OF    THE    CHURCH.  513 

extreme  necessity  of  the  case,  and  did  its  best  to  cure  the  im- 
medicable disease.  Its  first  canon  reaffirmed  the  observance  of 
the  Basilian  regulations,  and  appointed  a  commission  empow- 
ered to  enforce  them;  and,  that  nothing  should  interfere  with 
its  efficiency,  the  Archbishops  of  St.  Andrews  and  Glasgow 
made  a  special  renunciation  of  their  exemption  from  the  juris- 
diction of  the  council.  The  second  canon,  in  forbidding  the 
residence  of  illegitimate  children  with  their  clerical  fathersT 
endeavored  to  procure  obedience  to  the  rule  ordered  by  the 
council  of  1549,  by  permitting  it  for  four  days  in  each  quar- 
ter, and  by  a  penalty  for  infractions  of  £200  in  the  case  of 
an  archbishop,  £100  in  that  of  a  bishop,  and  leaving  the 
mulct  to  be  imposed  on  inferior  ecclesiastics  at  the  discretion 
of  the  officials.  The  third  canon  prohibited  the  promotion  of 
children  in  their  father's  benefices,  and  supplicated  the  queen- 
regent  to  obtain  of  the  pope  that  no  dispensations  should  be 
granted  to  evade  the  rule.  The  fourth  canon  inhibited  ecclesi- 
astics from  marrying  their  daughters  to  barons  and  lairds,  and 
endowing  them  with  church  lands,  or  making  their  sons  barons 
or  lairds  with  more  than  £100  annual  income,  under  pain  of 
fine  to  the  amount  of  the  dowry  or  lands  abstracted  from  the 
church;  and  all  grants  of  church  lands  or  tithes  to  concu- 
bines or  children  were  pronounced  null  and  void.1 

When  such  legislation  was  necessary,  the  disorders  which 
it  was  intended  to  repress  are  acknowledged  in  terms  admit- 
ting neither  of  palliation  nor  excuse.  The  extent  of  the  evil 
especially  alluded  to  in  the  latter  canons  is  further  exempli- 
fied by  the  fact  that  during  the  thirty  years  immediately  fol- 
lowing the  establishment  of  the  Eeformation  in  Scotland,  more 


1  Wilkins,  IV.  207-10.— Knox,  p. 
129.  These  canons,  it  appears,  were 
not  adopted  without  opposition.  Ac- 
cording to  Knox,  "  But  herefrom  ap- 
pealed the  Bishop  of  Murray  and 
other  prelates,  saj'ing  That  they  would 
abide  the  canon  law.  And  so  they 
might  well  enough  do,  so  long  as  they 
remained    Interpreters,    Dispensators, 


Archbishop  of  St.  Andrews  relied  when 
he  consented  to  waive  his  exemption 
in  this  matter.  His  personal  reputa- 
tion may  be  estimated  from  the  re- 
mark of  Queen  Mary  when,  in  Decem- 
ber, 1566,  he  performed  the  rite  of 
baptism  on  James  VI.  She  forbade 
him  to  use  the  popular  ceremony  of 
employing  his  saliva,  giving  a  reason 


Makers  and  Disannulled  of  the  Law."  j  which  was  in  the  highest  degree  de- 
-(Op.  cit.  119.)     It  was  doubtless  on  ■  rogatory  to  his  moral  character.     (Sir 


some    such    considerations    that   the  '  J.  Y.  Simpson, -ubi  sup.). 

33 


514 


THE    SCOTTISH    REFORMATION 


letters  of  legitimation  were  taken  out  than  were  issued  in  the 
subsequent  two  centuries.'  These  were  given  to  the  sons  of 
the  clergy  who  were  allowed  to  retain  their  benefices,  and  who 
then  made  over  the  property  to  their  natural  children.1 

Such  being  the  state  of  morals  among  the  ministers  of  the  old 
religion,  it  is  easy  to  appreciate  the  immense  advantage  enjoyed 
by  the  Keformers.  They  made  good  use  of  it.  Knox  loses  no 
opportunity  of  stigmatizing  the  "  pestilent  Papists  and  Masse- 
mongers"  as  "adulterers  and  whoremasters,"  who  were  thus 
perpetually  held  up  to  the  people  for  execration,  while  the 
individual  wrongs  from  which  so  many  suffered  were  noised 
about  and  made  the  subject  of  constantly-increasing  popular 
indignation.2  Yet  the  abrogation  of  celibacy  occupies  less  space 
in  the  history  of  the  Scottish  Eeformation  than  in  that  of  any 
other  people  who  threw  off  the  allegiance  to  Eome. 

The  remote  position  of  Scotland  and  its  comparative  bar- 
barism rendered  it  in  some  degree  inaccessible  to  the  early 
doctrines  of  Luther  and  Zwingli.  Before  it  began  to  show 
a  trace  of  the  new  ideas,  clerical  marriage  had  long  passed 
out  of  the  region  of  disputation  with  the  Eeformers,  and  was 
firmly  established  as  one  of  the  inseparable  results  of  the 
doctrine  of  justification  professed  by  all  the  reformed  churches.3 


1  Robertson,  Hist.  Scot.  Bk.  II. 

2  Thus  the  Parliament  of  1560, 
which  effected  a  settlement  of  the  Re- 
formed Religion,  was  urged  to  its  duty 
by  a  Supplication  presented  in  the 
name  of  "  The  Barons,  Gentlemen,  Bur- 
gesses, and  other  true  Subjects  of  this 
Realjn,  professing  the  Lord  Jesus  with- 
in the  same,"  which,  among  its  argu- 
ments against  Catholicism,  does  not 
hesitate  to  assert — "  Secondarily,  see- 
ing that  the  sacraments  of  Jesus  Christ 
are  most  shamefully  abused  and  pro- 
faned by  that  Romane  Harlot  and  her 
sworne  vassals,  and  also  because  that 
the  true  Discipline  of  the  Ancient 
Church  is  utterly  now  among  that  Sect 
extinguished :  For  who  within  the 
Realme  are  more  corrupt  in  life  and 
manners  than  are  they  that  are  called 
the  Clergie,  living  in  whoredom  and 
adultery,  deflouring  Virgins,  corrupt- 
ing Matrons,  and  doing  all  abomination 


without  fear  of  punishment.  We 
humbly,  therefore,  desire  your  Honors 
to  finde  remedy  against  the  one  and 
the  other." — Knox,  p.  255. 

3  This  doctrine  bore  its  full  share  in 
the  history  of  the  Scottish  reforma- 
tion. Two  years  after  the  execution 
of  the  protomartyr,  Patrick  Hamilton, 
in  1528,  his  sister  Catherine  was  ar- 
raigned on  account  of  her  belief  in  jus- 
tification through  Christ.  Learned 
divines  urged  upon  her  with  prolix 
earnestness  of  disputation  the  neces- 
sity of  works,  until  her  patience  gave 
way,  and  she  rudely  exclaimed, 
"  Work  here  and  work  there,  what 
kind  of  working  is  all  this  ?  No  work 
can  save  me  but  the  work  of  Christ 
my  Saviour."  By  the  connivance  of 
the  king  she  was  enabled  to  escape 
to  England. — Froude,  Hist.  Engl.  IV. 
63. 


POLITICAL   OBJECTS   OF   THE   REFORMERS.      515 

Not  only  was  it  tjius  accepted  as  a  matter  of  course  by  all 
converts  to  the  new  faith,  but  that  faith,  when  once  intro- 
duced, spread  in  Scotland  with  a  rapidity  elsewhere  unknown. 
The  permission  to  read  the  Scriptures  in  the  vulgar  tongue, 
granted  by  Parliament  in  1543,  doubtless  had  much  to  do 
with  this ;  the  leaning  of  the  Regent  Arran  to  the  same  side 
gave  it  additional  impetus,  and  the  savage  fierceness  with 
which  the  Reformers  were  prepared  to  vindicate  their  belief 
is  shown  by  the  murder  of  Cardinal  Beatoun,  which  was 
countenanced  and  justified  by  Knox  himself.  Powerful  nobles 
soon  saw  in  it  the  means  of  emancipating  themselves  from  the 
vacillating  control  of  the  regent ;  nor  was  the  central  authority 
strengthened  when,  in  1554,  the  reins  of  power  were  wrested 
from  the  feeble  Arran  and  confided  to  the  queen-'dowager, 
Mary  of  Guise,  who  found  herself  obliged  to  encourage  each 
party  by  turns,  and  to  balance  one  against  the  other,  to  pre- 
vent either  Catholic  or  Calvinist  from  obtaining  control  over 
the  state.  Then,  too,  as  in  Germany  and  England,  the  tem- 
poral possessions  of  the  church  were  a  powerful  temptation 
to  its  destruction.  From  the  great  Duke  of  Chatelleraut  to 
the  laird  of  some  insignificant  peel,  all  were  needy  and  all 
eager-  for  a.  share  in  the  spoil.  When,  in  1560,  an  assembly  of 
the  nobles  at  Edinburgh  listened  to  a  disputation  on  the  Mass, 
and  the  Catholic  doctors  were  unable  to  defend  it  as  a  propi- 
tiatory sacrifice,  the  first  exclamation  of  the  lords  revealed 
the  secret  tendencies  of  their  thoughts — "We  have  been 
miserably  deceived  heretofore ;  for  if  the  Mass  may  not  ob- 
tain remission  of  sins  to  the  quick  and  to  the  dead,  Wherefore 
were  all  the  Abbies  so  richly  doted  and  endowed  with  our 
Temporall  lands?"1 

Of  course  less  selfish  purposes  were  put  forward  to  enlist 
the  support  of  the  people.  On  the  1st  of  January,  1558, 
when  the  storm  was  gathering,  but  before  it  had  burst,  the 
inmates  of  the  religious  houses  found  affixed  to  their  gates  a 
proclamation  in  the  name  of  "  The  Blinde,  Crooked,  Lame, 
Widows,  Orphans,  and  all  other  Poor,  so  visited  by  the  hand 
of  God  as  cannot  work,"  ordering  the  monks  to  leave  the 


Knox,  p.  283. 


516  THE    SCOTTISH    REFORMATION. 

patrimony  intended  to  relieve  the  suffering,  but  usurped  by 
indolent  shavelings,  giving  them  until  Whit- Sunday  to 
make  their  exit,  after  which  they  would  be  ejected  by  force, 
and  ending  with  the  significant  warning — "  Let  him,  there- 
fore, that  hath  before  stollen,  steal  no  more,  but  rather  let 
him  work  with  his  hands  that  he  may  be  helpfull  to  the 
poore."1 

•  Such  a  cry  could  hardly  fail  to  be  popular,  but  when  the 
threat  was  carried  into  execution,  the  blind  and  the  crooked, 
the  widow  and  orphan  received  so  small  a  share  of  the  spoil 
that  they  were  worse  off  than  before.  As  we  have  already 
seen  in  England,  the  destruction  of  the  Scottish  monasteries 
was  the  commencement  of  the  necessity  of  making  some  pub- 
lic provision  for  paupers.2  The  nobles  seized  the  lion's  share ; 
the  rest  fell  to  the  crown,  subject  to  the  payment  of  the  very 
moderate  stipends  assigned  to  the  comparatively  few  minis- 
ters required  by  the  new  establishment,  and  these  stipends 
were  so  irregularly  paid  that  the  unfortunate  ministers  were 
frequently  in  danger  of  starvation,  and  were  constantly  besieg- 
ing the  court  with  their  dolorous  complaints.  Where  the 
lands  and  revenues  went  is  indicated  with  grim  humor  by 
Knox,  in  describing  the  resistance  offered  in  1560  to  the  adop- 
tion of  his  Book  of  Discipline  by  those  who  had  professed 
great  zeal  for  the  Lord  Jesus.  Lord  Erskine  had  been  one 
of  the  first  and  most  consistent  of  the  "Lords  of  the  Congre- 
gation," yet  he  also  refused  to  sign  the  book — "  And  no  won- 
der, for  besides  that  he  had  a  very  evill  woman  to  his  wife,  if 
the  Poore,  the  Schooles,  and  the  Ministerie  of  the  Church  had 
their  owne,  his  Kitchin  would  lack  two  parts  and  more  of  that 
which  he  unjustly  now  possesseth."3 


1  Knox,  p.  119.  3  Ibid.  p.  278.    The  Book  was  sign- 

,  mi        ,,  ,  ,       f  .-,       t        ,   I  ed  at  Edinburgh,  Jan.   27,  1561,   but 

2  Thus  the  assembly  of  the  church        .       -.      ..      °, '  , .  '  '. 

.     nmaal  *.  *    *i       only  after  the  adoption  of  a  proviso — 

m  1502  drew  up  a  remonstrance  to  the  |  apfov.ded  £     Bishops,  Abbots, 

queen,  in  which  they  requested    hat  and  Qther  Prelate/and  Bene! 

in  every  Parish  some  ot    he  Tythea  (  ficed  adjoyned 

may  .be  assigned  to  the  ^ntation    themselve'g  to       brooke  the  re^ues 

and  maintenance  of  the  poor  within      e   .-,    -     -n       a         -,     ■        ,,    •     ••* 
?,  T   j   vi       •       4.1    i  ot    their  Benefices    during    their  hfe- 

the    same:    And  likewise   that  some  i  t.         „     ,T7    ,,,         .   ,   °  ,    .   , 

,  ...         ,.  r  v.  -j  a  t     +i     i  times." — Worldly    wisdom    certainly 

publike  relief  may  be  provided  lor  the  !  i  i^    '•  ti    «  •    n         j        e 

1  ./f  •       t,  i     ii     Ti   i  was  not  lost  sight  ot  in  the  ardor  of  a 

poor    within    Burroughs." — Ibid.    p.  ,  5    ..  . 

5™  new  an(i  purer  religion. 


CHARACTER   OF    THE    STRUGGLE.  517 

Yet,  when  compared  with  the  rich  abbatial  manors  of  Eng- 
land or  the  princely  foundations  of  Germany,  the  spoil  of  the 
church  was  mean  indeed.'  Knox  had  resided  much  abroad, 
and  had  seen  the  vast  wealth  which  the  piety  of  ages  had 
showered  upon  the  church  in  the  most  opulent  lands  of  Eu- 
rope, yet  his  simplicity  or  fanaticism  finds  source  of  wonder- 
ing comment  in  •  the  homespun  luxury  of  the  unfortunate 
monks  whom  he  assisted  in  dispossessing.  When  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  monasteries  in  1559  commenced  by  a  brawl  in 
Perth,  where  three  prominent  convents  were  broken  up,  Knox, 
who  was  present,  expatiates  on  the  extravagance  revealed  to 
sight — "  And  in  very  deed  the  Grey-Friers  was  a  place  so  well 
provided  that  unlesse  honest  men  had  seen  the  same,  we  would 
have  feared  to  have  reported  what  provision  they  had,  their 
sheets,  blankets,  beds  and  coverlets  were  such  that  no  Earle 
in  Scotland  had  better:  Their  naperie  was  fine;  they  were  but 
8  persons  in  the  Convent,  and  yet  they  had  8  puncheons  of 
salt  beef  (consider  the  time  of  the  yeere,  the  eleventh  of  May), 
wine,  beere,  and  ale,  beside  store  of  victuals  belonging  there- 
to."1 Imagine  an  abbot  of  St.  Albans  or  an  abbess  of  Poissy 
reduced  to  the  coverlets  and  salt  beef  which  the  stern  Calvin- 
ist  deemed  an  indulgence  so  great  as  to  be  incredible ! 

Still,  in  so  impoverished  a  country  as  the  Scotland  of  that 
period,  even  these  poor  spoils  were  a  motive  sufficient  to 
prove  a  powerful  aid  to  the  conquering  party  in  the  struggle. 
And  yet,  amid  all  the  miserable  ambitions  of  the  Erskines 
and  Murrays,  the  Huntleys  and  Bothwells,  who  occupied  the 
prominent  places  in  the  court  and  camp,  we  should  do  griev- 
ous wrong  to  the  spirit  which  triumphed  at  last  over  the  force 
and  fraud  of  the  Guises,  if  we  attributed  to  temporal  motives 
alone  the  movement  which  expelled  licentious  prelates  and 
drove  Queen  Mary  to  the  fateful  refuge  of  Fotheringay.  The 
selfish  aims  of  the  nobles  would  have  been  fruitless  but  for 
the  zealous  earnestness  of  the  people,  led  by  men  of  iron 
nature,  who  doubted  themselves  as  little  as  they  doubted  their 
God,  and  who,  in  the  death-struggle  with  Antichrist,  were  as 
ready  to  suffer  as  they  were  ruthless  to  inflict.     Nor  can  the 


1  Knox,  13G. 


518  THE    SCOTTISH    REFORMATION. 

disorders  of  the  Catholic  clergy  be  rightly  imputed  to  the  tem- 
perament of  the  race,  for  the  reformers,  who  carried  with  them 
so  large  a  portion  of  the  middle  and  lower  classes,  preached  a 
system  of  rigid  morality  to  which  the  world  had  been  a 
stranger  since  the  virtues  of  the  Germanic  tribes  had  been 
lost  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Empire ;  and  they  not  merely 
preached  it,  but  obtained  its  embodiment  in  a  code  of  repres- 
sive laws,  which  their  vigilant  authority  strictly  enforced. 

I  have  said  above  that  the  question  of  celibacy  appears  but 
rarely  in  the  course  of  the  contest,  yet  notwithstanding  the 
causes  which  rendered  it  comparatively  unimportant,  it  occa- 
sionally rises  to  view,  showing  that  it  entered  into  the  strug- 
gle and  was  the  subject  of  disputation,  together  with  the  other 
points  in  controversy.  Thus  George  Wishart,  one  of  the 
early  heretics  who  ventured  openly  to  preach  the  Lord  Jesus, 
was  seized  in  spite  of  powerful  protectors,  and  after  a  pro- 
longed captivity  was  brought  for  trial  before  Cardinal  Bea- 
toun  in  1545.  In  the  accusation  against  him,  article  14th 
asserted,  "  Thou  false  Hereticke  hast  taught  plainly  against 
the  Vows  of  Monks,  Friers,  Nuns  and  Priests,  saying,  That 
whosoever  was  bound  to  such  like  Yows,  they  vowed  them- 
selves to  the  state  of  damnation.  Moreover,  That  it  was  law- 
full  for  Priests  to  marry  wives  and  not  to  live  sole."  Wis- 
hart tacitly  confessed  the  truth  of  this  impeachment  by 
rejoining — "But  as  many  as  have  not  the  gift  of  chastity,  nor 
yet  for  the  Gospel  have  overcome  the  concupiscence  of  the 
flesh,  and  have  vowed  chastity ;  ye  have  experience,  although 
I  should  hold  my  tongue,  to  what  inconveniences  they  have 
exposed  themselves."1  He  was  accordingly  condemned  as  an 
incorrigible  heretic,,  and  promptly  burnt. 

Even  as  late  as  1558  the  trial  of  Walter  Mill  shows  that 
the  question  was  still  agitated  in  the  controversies  between 
the  polemics  of  the  two  parties.  One  of  the  articles  of  accu- 
sation against  Mill  was  -that  he  asserted  the  lawfulness  of 
sacerdotal  marriage.  To  this  he  boldly  assented,  declaring 
that  he  regarded  matrimony  as  a  blessed  bond,  open  for  all  men 


1  Knox,  p.  65. — Knox's  characteris- 1  dumb,  thinking  it  better  to  have  ten 
tic  comment  on  this  is — "When  he    concubines  than  one  wife." 
had  said  these  words,  they  were  all  | 


per'secution.  519 

to  enter,  and  that  it  were  better  for  priests  to  marry  than  to 
vow  chastity  and  not  preserve  it,  as  they  were  wont  to  do. 
Condemned  to  the  stake,  the  unfortunate  old  man  commanded 
the  sympathies  of  the  people,  even  in  the  archiepiscopal  town 
of  St.  Andrews.  No  one  could  be  found  to  act  as  execu- 
tioner, until  at  length  one  of  the  servants  of  the  archbishop 
consented  to  fill  the  abhorrent  office ;  but  when  a  rope  was 
sought  with  which  to  bind  the  wretched  sufferer  to  the  stake, 
no  one  would  furnish  it,  and  the  tragedy  was  necessarily  post- 
poned. Equally  unsuccessful  was  the  next  day's  search,  until 
the  archbishop,  fearing  to  lose  his  victim,  gave  the  cords  of  his 
own  pavilion,  and  the  sentence  was  carried  into  effect.  Even 
after  the  sacrifice,  the  popular  feeling  was  manifested  by  rais- 
ing a  pile  of  stones  as  a  monument  on  the  place  of  torture, 
and  as  often  as  these  were  cast  aside  by  the  priests  they  were 
replaced  by  the  people,  until  the  followers  of  the  archbishop 
carried  them  off  by  night,  and  used  them  for  building.1 

.  These  incidents  show  us  that  the  question  received  its  share 
of  attention  in  the  controversy  by  which  each  side  endeavored 
to  secure  the  support  of  the  nation,  but  it  makes  no  appear- 
ance in  public  negotiations  and  declarations.  Thus,  in  1558, 
when  the  growing  strength  of  the  Lords  of  the  Congregation 
led  the  Catholics  to  offer  concessions,  which  were  rejected 
by  the  conscious  power  of  the  reformers,  there  was  no  allu- 
sion to  celibacy  on  either  side.  In  fact,  between  the  respec- 
tive leaders,  the  questions  were  almost  purely  personal  and 
political;  while  among  the  conscientiously  religious  sup- 
porters of  either  party,  opinions  were  too  rigidly  defined  for 
argument.  Convictions  were  too  divergent  and  too  firm  for 
compromise  or  concession  to  be  possible,  and  Catholic  and 
Calvinist  grimly  recognized,  as  by  a  tacit  understanding,  the 
alternative  of  extermination.     When  the  English,  alliance  at 


1  Knox,  p.  130. — Burnet,  vol.  II. 
The  implacable  character  of  Scottish 
persecution  is  aptly  illustrated  by  a 
proclamation  issued  by  Cardinal  Bea- 


an  egg  within  those  dioceses  should 
forfeit  no  less  than  his  body  to  be 
burnt  as  a  heretic,  and  all  his  goods 
confiscate  to  the  king." — Froude,Hist. 

tonn  in  1540  for  the  purpose  of  spiting  j  Engl.  IV.  54. 

Sir  Ralph  Sadler,  the  English  envoy        It  was  a  life  and  death  struggle,  in 

at  Edinburgh.     It  was   during   Lent,    which  quarter  could  neither  be  asked 

and  the  proclamation  declared  "  that    nor  given. 

whosoever  should  buy  an  egg  or  eat  I 


520  THE    SCOTTISH    REFORMATION. 

last  drove  the  Catholics  to  the  wall,  and  in  July,  1560,  there 
assembled  the  parliament  to  which  by  the'  Articles  of  Leith 
was  referred  the  duty  of  effecting  a  settlement  of  the  king- 
dom, the  vanquished  party  made  no  struggle  against  their 
fate.  Such  Catholic  prelates  and  lords  as  took  their  seats  re- 
frained from  all  debate,  and  allowed  the  victors  to  arrange 
the  temporal  and  spiritual  affairs  of  the  kingdom  at  their 
pleasure. 

In  this  settlement,  our  subject  affords  a  curious  comparison 
between  the  English  and  Scotch  churches.  In  the  former,  at 
a  period  even  later  than  this,  it  was  considered  necessary  to 
embody  a  renunciation  of  celibacy  in  the  organic  law,  which 
has  been  maintained  to  the  present  day.  In  the  latter,  eccle- 
siastical marriage  had  become  already  so  firmly  established 
in  the  minds  of  the  Eeformers  that  it  was  accepted  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  which  needed  no  special  confirmation.  Although 
laws  were  passed  prohibiting  the  Mass  and  abolishing  the 
supremacy  of  the  pope,  none -were  thought  necessary  to  legal- 
ize the  marriages  of  the  clergy.  Even  in  Knox's  Confession 
of  Faith,  adopted  by  the  parliament  on  the  17th  of  July,  there 
is  no  direct  allusion  to  the  matter.  The  only  passage  which 
can  be  construed  as  having  any  bearing  upon  it  occurs  in 
Chapter  xiv.,  when  considering  "What  works  are  reputed 
good  before  God.1' — "And  evill  works  we  afflrme  not  onely 
those  that  are  expressly  done  against  God's  commandment, 
but  those  also  that  in  matters  of  religion  and  worshipping  of 
God  have  no  assurance,  but  the  invention  and  opinion  of  man, 
which  God  from  the  beginning  hath  ever  rejected,  as  by  the 
prophet  Isaiah  and  by  our  Master  Christ  Jesus  we  are  taught 
in  these  words — In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  doctrines 
which  are  precepts  of  Men  J H 

Nothing  more,  in  fact,  was  needed  when  the  triumph  of  the 
new  ideas  was  so  complete  that  Knox  could  exultingly  ex- 
claim, "  For  what  Adulterer,  what  Fornicator,  what  known 
Masse-monger  or  pestilent  Papist  durst  have  been  seen  in  pub- 
like within  any  Eeformed  Town  within  this  Eealme  before 
that  the  Queen  arrived?  .  .  .  For  while  that  Papists  were  so 


Knox,  p.  263. 


TRIUMPH  OF  THE  REFORM.  521 

confounded  that  none  within  the  Eealme  durst  avow  the -hear- 
ing or  saying  of  Masse  then  the  thieves  of  Tiddisdale  durst 
avow  their  stouth  or  stealing  in  the  presence  of  any  upright 
judge."1  When  persecution  thus  had  changed  sides,  no  min- 
ister could  feel  that  his  nuptials  required  special  authori- 
zation. 

It  were  foreign  to  our  object  to  enter  into  the  dark  details 
of  Mary's  short  and  disastrous  reign.  The  intrigues  of  the 
camarilla,  the  boyish  weakness  of  Darnley,  the  subtlety  of 
Kizzio,  and  the  coarse  ambition  of  Huntley  and  Bothwell 
were  alike  harmless  against  the  earnest  reverence  of  the 
people  for  the  new  faith ;  and  the  expiring  struggles  of  Catho- 
licism were  too  feeble  to  give  any  practical  importance  to  the 
vain  attempts  at  reaction. 


1  Knox,  p.  304, 


XXIX. 
THE  POST-TRIDENTINE  CHURCH. 


The  great  council,  on  which  so  long  had  hung  the  hopes 
of  the  Christian  world,  had  at  last  been  held.  The  reforma- 
tion of  the  church,  postponed  by  the  skilful  policy  of  the 
popes,  had  been  reached  in  the  closing  sessions,  and  had  been 
hurriedly  provided  for.  As  we  have  seen,  the  regulations 
which  concerned  the  morals  of  the  clergy  were  sufficient  for 
their  purpose,  if  only  they  could  be  enforced,  yet  as  they 
were  but  the  hundredth  repetition  of  an  endeavor  to  conquer 
human  nature,  which  had  always  previously  failed,  even 
those  who  enacted  them  could  have  felt  little  faith  in  their 
efficacy.     It  remains  for  us  to  see  what  they  accomplished. 

Although  Catherine  de  Medicis  and  her  courtiers  refused 
to  allow  the  council  to  be  formally  published  in  France,  yet 
she  permitted  its  decrees  to  be  freely  circulated,  and  her  bish- 
ops were  at  liberty  to  adopt  them  as  the  code  of  discipline  in 
their  dioceses.  The  difficulties  raised  by  the  Emperor  Maxi- 
milian on  the  score  of  priestly  celibacy  were  met  with  a  vigor* 
on  the  part  of  Pius  IV.  which  savored  of  the  thirteenth  rather 
than  the  sixteenth  century.  Philip  II.,  after  a  short  hesitation, 
ordered  the  reception  of  the  council  in  all  his  dominions, 
which  extended  from  Naples  to  the  North  Sea ;  and  Poland, 
despite  some  opposition  from  an  ambitious  primate,  submitted 
to  it  before  the  year  1564  was  ended.1 

As  an  authoritative  exposition  of  the  law  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  conceived  and  elaborated  under  the  influence  of  the 


1  By  a  Bull  dated  July  18,  1564, 
Pius  IV.  fixed  May  1,  1564,  as  the 
time  when  the  Tridentine  canons  be- 
came the  law  of  the  church.  His 
letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Bremen 


with  an  official  copy  and  directions  as 
to  its  promulgation,  is  dated  Oct.  3d 
of  the  same  year.- — (Hartzheim,  VII. 
25.)  # 


hEFORMS  ATTEMPTED  BY  PIUS  V. 


523 


Holy  Ghost,  and  commanded  for  implicit  observance  by  the 
Vicegerent  of  God ;  as  the  expression  of  the  needs  and  wants 
of  the  Catholic  faith,  wrought  by  the  concentrated  energy  and 
wisdom  of  the  leading  doctors  of  Christendom,  and  transmitted 
for  practical  application  through  the  wondrous  machinery 
of  the  Catholic  hierarchy,  it  should  have  had  an  immediate 
influence  on  the  evils  which  it  was  intended  to  eradicate. 
Those  evils  had  confessedly  done  much  to  create  and  foster, 
the  schism  under  which  the  church  was  reeling;  their  magni- 
tude was  admitted  by  all,  and  no  one  ventured  to  defend  or 
to  palliate  them.  Their  removal  was  acknowledged  to  be  a 
necessity  of  the  gravest  character,  and  every  adherent  of 
Catholicism  was  bound  to  lend  his  aid  to  the  good  work. 
What,  then,  was  accomplished  by  the  council  which  had  for 
so  long  a  period  labored  ostensibly  with  the  object  of  restor- 
ing Latin  Christianity  to  its  primitive  purity  ? 

Pius  IV.  rested  satisfied  with  promulgating  and  confirming 
the  decrees  of  the  council,  and  waited  to  see  them  produce- 
their  destined  effect.  In  1566,  however,  he  was  succeeded  by 
Pius  V.,  whose  experience  as  grand  inquisitor  had  doubtless 
rendered  him  familiar  with  the  prevailing  neglect  of  ecclesi- 
astical discipline,  while  his  unbending  temper  made  him  rigo- 
rous in  his  determination  to  restore  it.1     One  of  the  earliest 


1  Already,  in  1564,  the  Synod  of 
Haarlem  announces  that  the  penal- 
ties of  deprivation  and  excommuni- 
cation are  insufficient,  and  it  super- 
adds a  fine  of  100  florins  for  each 
conviction,  as  more  likely  to  effect  a 
reformation.  —  Synod.    Harlem,    aim. 

1564,  de  Cohab.  Cleric.  §  ii.     (Hartz- 
heim,  VII.  5.) 

The  condition  of  monastic  disci- 
pline in  Holland  may  he  gathered 
from  the  reproof  which  the  Synod  of 
Utrecht,  in  1564,  administered  to  cer- 
tain nunneries,  the  youthful  virgins  of 
which  were  in  the  habit  of  introduc- 
ing musicians  into  the  privacy  of 
their  cells  and  passing  the  nights  in 
singing  and  dancing.  (Hartzheim, 
VII.  p.  22.) 

Quite  as  suggestive  is  the  prohibi- 
tion, in  the  Council  of  Utrecht,  Oct. 

1565,  forbidding  the  younger  clergy 


and  nobility,  "sine  justa  et  urgenti 
causa."  from  visiting  nuns  in  their 
cells  and  dining-rooms,  or  drinking 
with  them  by  day  or  night. — Concil. 
Ultraject.  ann.  1565  (Hartzheim,  VII. 
137). 

It  is  true  that,  at  this  time,  the 
Council  of  Trent  had  not  been  official- 
ly received  in  the  Low  Countries.  In 
August,  1564,  Philip  II.  had  ordered 
its  publication,  but  Margaret  of  Parma 
had  hesitated  to  obey  in  consequence 
of  the  intense  opposition  excited  by 
its  interference  with  local  liberties 
and  franchises.  It  was  not  until  Dec. 
18,  1565,  that  it  was  finally  promul- 
gated, under  imperative  commands 
from  Philip,  and  to  it  William  of 
Orange  attributed  the  inevitable  revo- 
lution which  followed. — (Stradse  de 
Bell.  Belgic.  Lib.  iv.)  Difficulties  were 
still  thrown  in  the  way  by  factious 


524 


THE   POST-TRIDENTINE   CHURCH 


acts  of  his  pontificate  was  the  publication  of  a  Bull  command- 
ing the  ordinaries  of  all  churches  to  put  in  force  the  Triden- 
tine  canons  respecting  concubinary  priests,  thus  showing  that 
already  they  were  treated  with  contempt,1  while  a  special 
mandate  on  the  subject,  addressed  to  the  Archbishop  of  Salz- 
burg, describes  the  unchecked  corruption  of  the  German  priest- 
hood as  threatening  the  speedy  destruction  of  the  Catholic 
religion  there.2  Two  years  later,  he  found  it  necessary  to  issue 
another  Bull,  directed  against  darker  crimes,  the  deplorable 
prevalence  of  which  can  hardly  be  attributed  to  any  addi- 
tional and  unaccustomed  vigor  in  removing  the  female  com- 
panions of  the  clergy.3 

In  1571  Pius' undertook  another  subject  of  reform.  •  Not- 
withstanding the  decree  of  the  council  that  any  action  of 
clerical  fathers  for  the  benefit  •  of  their  offspring  should  be 
considered  as  fraudulent,  the  transmission  of  ecclesiastical 
property  to  such  illegitimate  heirs  continued  almost  un- 
checked, and  Pius  recognized  the  necessity  of  further  legisla- 
tion to  diminish  the  abuse.  His  Bull  on  the  subject  is  drawn 
up  with  a  care  and  minuteness  which  show  the  magnitude  of 
the  evil  and  the  extreme  difficulty  of  preventing  it.4     Nor 


deans  and  chapters.  In  1578  we  find 
the  Duke  of  Alva  still  ordering  its 
observance  in  the  province  of  Utrecht, 
and  it  was  not  till  1570  that  the  Synod 
of  Mechlin  finally  received  it. 

1  Bull.  Cum  Primum  §  12.  (Mag. 
Bull.  Roman.  II.  180.) 

2  "  Plerosque  .  .  .  abjecto  Dei  timore 
et  sine  ulla  hominum  verecundia,  con- 
cubinas  palam  habere,  easque  perinde, 
ac  si  legitimae  eorum  uxores  essent, 
in  ecclesiis  et  aliis  locis  publicis  con- 
spici,  vulgo  iisdem,quibus  illi  vocan- 
tur,  officioruni  et  dignitatum  nomini- 
bus  appellatas  ;  eoque  haereses  tanto- 
pere  crevisse,  ac  multiplicatas  fuisse ; 
quod  ecclesiastici  tarn  turpiter  et  ne- 
quiter  vivendo,  omnem  plane  existima- 
tionem  amiserint,  et  in  surnmam  non 
apud  haereticos  modo,  sed  etiam  Ca- 
tholicos  contemptionem  venerint  .  .  . 
Nisi  enim  tam  nefandum  concubina- 
tus  vitium  extirpetur,  nullam  spem 
reliquam  esse  videmus  reprimi  posse 
haereses.     Sed   timemus  (quod  Deus 


avertat)  ne  brevi  tempore  istae,  quae 
supersunt,  Catholicorum  reliquiae 
amittantur,  et  omnis  prorsus  Catho- 
licae  religionis  cultus  apud  vos  extin- 
guatur." — Breve  Pii  V.  ad  Archiep. 
Salzburg.     (Hartzheim,  VII.  231.) 

3 "Bull.  Horrendam  (Mag.  Bull.  Ro- 
man. II.  267). 

4  Bull.  Quae  Ordini.— How  difficult 

j  was  the  task  thus  undertaken  is  ad- 

1  raitted  in  the  Bull  itself—"  Quia  vero 

difficile   nimis   esset,  praesentes  quo- 

cumque    illis    opus     erit    proferre." 

(Ibid.  II.  323-4.)     This  did  not  put 


an  end  to  the  abuse,  and  Rome  itself 


■  apparently  winked  at  contraventions 
I  of  the  rule,  which  could  be  rendered 
j  profitable  by  the  prerogative  of  issu- 
i  ing  dispensations.  In  1610  the  Synod 
I  of  Augsburg  found  it  necessary  to 
j  declare  that  it  would  enforce  the  Tri- 
{  dentine  canons  prohibiting  the  illegi- 
|  timate  sons  of  priests  from  holding 
j  preferment  in  their  fathers'  benefices, 
i  notwithstanding  what   dispensations 


IMMORALITY    OF    ROME.  525 

was  there  only  the  need  of  preserving  the  possessions  of  the 
church;  the  scandal  of  sacerdotal  families  required  repres- 
sion, and  all  other  means  having  apparently  failed,  in  1572 
another  decretal  declared  that  such  children  were  incapable 
of  receiving  even  the  private  and  patrimonial  property  of 
their  fathers.1  These  successive  edicts  are  a  full  confession 
that  the  long-promised  reformation  was  a  failure,  and  that 
while  the  council  might  regulate  doctrine,  it  was  utterly  pow- 
erless to  enforce  discipline. 

•Yet  even  these  legislative  labors  of  the  pope  are  less  in- 
structive than  the  war  which  he  commenced  against  the  cour- 
tesans of  Home.  If  the  new  enactments  could  have  been 
expected  to  command  respect,  the  example  should  have  been 
set* in  the  Holy  City  itself,  but  Pius  IY.  had  allowed  the  most 
public  and  scandalous  immorality  to  flourish  unchecked  under 
his  immediate  supervision.  Pius  Y.  felt  the  disgrace  keenly, 
anj  resolved  on  its  suppression.  He  at  first  proposed  to  put 
an  end  to  the  nefarious  trade,  and  to  banish  all  the  public 
women  wrho  would  not  give  a  pledge  of  reformation  by  an 
immediate  marriage.  Forced  to  relinquish  this  measure  as 
impracticably  harsh,  he  contented  himself  by  restricting  their 
residence  to  certain  houses,  and  forbade  their  plying  their 
vocation  in  the  streets  by  day  or  night.  Although  he  thus 
admitted  the  necessity  of  the  evil,  and  endeavored  to  restrain 
only  its  public  manifestation,  even  this  moderate  attempt  at 
reform  was  deemed  insufferable.  The  clergy  were  ashamed 
to  offer  opposition  openly,  but  found  no  difficulty  in  urging 
the  Senate  to  strenuous  resistance.  The  remonstrance  made 
by  that  body  shows  not  only  the  frightful  extent  of  the  preva- 
lent immorality,  but  also  the  settled  conviction  that  immo- 
rality was  inseparable  from  celibacy.  It  wras  represented  that 
if  the  proposed  rules  were  enforced,  the  prosperity  of  the  city 
would  be  destroyed  and  the  rents  of  houses  be  reduced  to  no- 
thing ;  moreover,  it  was  urged  that,  amid  so  vast  a  number  of 
men  condemned  to  celibacy,  if  any  such  restrictions  were  put 
in  force,  it  would  be  impossible  to  preserve  the  virtue  of  the 


they  might  produce  to  the  contrary.  I      >  Bull.  Ad  Romanum.     (Mag.  Bull. 
—Synod.  August,    ann.  1610,  P.  in.  |  Roman.  II.  325.) 
c.  iii.  §  1.     (Hartzheim,  IX.  59.) 


526 


THE   POST-TRIDENTINE   CHURCH. 


wives  and  daughters  of  the  citizens.  The  contest  was  stub- 
bornly continued  until  at  length  Pius  was  driven  to  declare 
that,  if  any  further  difficulties  were  interposed,  he  would  aban- 
don the  city.1 

In  spite  of  these  well-meant  but  nugatory  efforts  of  Pius, 
the  •immorality  of  the  papal  court  itself  and  of  its  highest 
dignitaries  was  admitted  by  a  Bull  which  Sixtus  Y.  promul- 
gated in  1586.  In  decreeing  that  no  one  who  had  children, 
even  if  they  were  legitimate,  should  be  eligible  to  the  cardi- 
nalate,  he  took  care  to  let  the  world  understand  the  cause  of 
the  restriction  by  declaring  that  in  no  other  way  could  evi- 
dence be  had  of  the  observance  of  their  vows.2 


If  Pius  Y.  met  with  opposition  in  the  task  of  purifying  'the 
Augean  stable  of  Rome,  St.  Charles  Borromeo,  encouraged 
and  stimulated  by  his  example,  found  himself  involved  in  a 
more  dangerous  quarrel  when  he  attempted,  in  the  equ^ly 
demoralized  city  of  Milan,  to  enforce  respect  for  the  decrees 
of  Trent.  In  1569  he  undertook  to  reform  the  canons  of  S. 
Maria  della  Scala,  whose  licentious  mode  of  life  was  a  scandal 
to  the  faithful.  So  persistently  did  they  deny  their  subjec- 
tion to  his  archiepiscopal  jurisdiction,  that,  after  a  long  dis- 
cussion, his  only  resource  for  vindicating  his  authority  was 
excommunication.  The  contumacious  canons  were  still  in- 
disposed to  yield,  and,  assembling  in  their  church,  they  mal- 
treated his  messenger.  Thinking  that  his  presence  might 
bring  them  to  reason,  he  ventured  himself  to  expostulate 
with  them,  and  found  them  drawn  up  in  their  cemetery,  with 
arms  in  their  hands,  and  supported  by  soldiers  whom  they 
had  hired.  On  reaching  the  gate,  he  dismounted  from  his 
mule  and  advanced  towards  them  with  his  cross,  which  he 
had  snatched  from  his  cross -bearer.  Unabashed  by  this  sym- 
bol at  once  of  religion  and  authority,  the  mutinous  canons 
rushed  upon  him  with  shouts  of  "  Spagna,"  "  Spagna,"  bran- 
dishing their  weapons  and  discharging  their  fire-arms  at  the 


1  De  Thou,  Lib.  xxxix.  "  Nee  matro- 
narum  pudicitiam  inter  tot  coelibes 
integram  et  inconeussam  aliter  ser- 
tfari  posse  nisi  pristina  libertas  resti- 
tuatur." 


2  Bull.  Postquara  Verus  (Mag. 
Bull.  Roman.  II.  567).—"  Certuiu 
nequeat  suae  testimonium  continentiae 
exhibere." 


ST.  CHARLES  BORROMEO  AND  THE  MONKS.   527 


cross  in  his  hands— fortunately  without  injuring  him.  Hav- 
ing thus  driven  him  off,  they  continued  for  some  time  in 
open  rebellion,  until  they  were  at  length  obliged  to  submit, 
when  Pius  V.  and  Philip  II.  united  their  power  in  support  of 
St.  Charles.1 

Still  greater  was  the  peril  to  which  the  saint  was  exposed 
in  his  quarrel  with  the  Umiliati.  They  were  a  branch  of  the 
Benedictine  order,  founded  in  1180  by  the  Milanese  who 
escaped  the  destruction  of  their  city  by  Frederic  Barbarossa. 
Sharing  in  the  general  license  of  the  age,  the  excesses,  of  the 
Umiliati  became  so  infamous  that  they  surpassed  in  turpitude 
the  worst  exploits  of  the  unbridled  youth  of  the  city.  Sup- 
ported by  the  decretals  of  Pius,  in  1568  St.  Charles  undertook 
to  reduce  the  order  to  the  observance  of  monastic  rule.  The 
Umiliati  resisted,  with  so  much  energy  and  success  that,  after 
two  years  of  contest,  they  were  still  defiant.  Eegarding  St. 
Charles  as  the  cause  of  all  their  troubles,  Jeronymo  Lignana, 
Provost  of  S.  Cristoforo  di  Vercelli,  who  assumed  their  lead- 
ership in  1570,  engaged  a  monk  of  the  order  named  Girolamo 
Donati  to  murder  him.  The  blackness  of  the  deed  was  not 
relieved  by  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  attempted. 
While  the  holy  archbishop  was  absorbed  at  midnight  in  his 
devotions,  Donati  stole  into  the  oratory  and  discharged  full 
upon  him  an  arquebuss  loaded  with  slugs.  Some  of  the  mis- 
siles struck  St.  Charles,  but  rebounded  to  the  floor,  leaving 
him  unhurt,  and  the  miraculous  nature  of  his  escape  was 
proved  by  the  depth  to  which  others  penetrated  the  Avails. 
At  this  moment  the  policy  of  Philip  the  Catholic  supported 
the  disaffected  and  rebellious  monks,  and  for  some  time  yet 
they  escaped  the  retribution  due  to  their  many  crimes,  but  at 
length  those  concerned  in  the  attempted  murder  were  caught 
and  executed,  and  the  order  of  the  Umiliati  was  broken  up.2 

These  examples  sufficiently  show  how  little  the  great  body 


1  Fleury,  Liv.  clxxi.  chap.  104  et 
seq. 

2  Muratori,  Annal.  ann.  1569. — 
Henrion,  Hist,  des  Ordres  Religieux 
I.  196. — Fleury,  Liv.  clxxi.  chap.  26. 
— De  Thou,  Lib.  l. — The  calm  Mura- 


tori stigmatizes  the  Umiliati  as  "  trop- 
po  scorretto  e  corrotto  ordine,"  and 
Henrion,  who  cannot  certainly  be  re- 
garded as  a  prejudiced  authority, 
declares  that  "  les  exces  des  Humilies 
surpassoient  ceux  des  la'iques  les  plus 
debauches." 


528 


THE    POST- TRIDENTINE    CHURCH. 


of  ecclesiastics  was  disposed  to  submit  to  a  curtailment  of 
the  license  which  had  become  traditional,  and  how  little  re- 
spect was  paid  either  to  the  commands  of  the  great  (Ecu- 
menic Council,  or  to  the  general  and  local  authorities.  It  is 
easy  to  imagine  that  few  prelates  were  so  disposed  to  court 
martyrdom  as  the  saintly  Charles,  and  that  churches  with  less 
conscientious  pastors  easily  found  means  to  purchase  or  com- 
pel exemption  from  the  laws  which  bound  them  to  morality. 
If  more  proof  be  wanted  of  the  inefficiency  of  the  Tridentine 
measures  of  reform  throughout  Italy,  and  the  hesitation  of 
the  officials  to  enforce  them,  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  series  of 
provincial  councils  held  during  the  remainder  of  the  century, 
from  Lombardy  to  Naples. 

The  papacy  had  succeeded  in  crushing  the  reformers  who 
had  responded  in  so  many  Italian  cities  to.  the  uprising  in 
Germany ;  it  had  then  convoked  and  managed  at  its  will  the 
great  Congress  of  Catholic  Christendom  which  was  to  put  an 
end  at  once  and  forever  to  all  the  evils  which  had  led  to  the 
schism ;  it  had  every  opportunity  and  every  motive  for  vin- 
dicating itself  from  the  aspersions  of  its  enemies,  and  yet  we 
see  it  at  once  recur  to  the  old  machinery  of  local  councils 
enacting  canons  whose  frequency  and  wordy  severity  are  the 
inverse  measure  of  their  efficiency.  Had  the  promises  of 
reform  so  liberally  made  been  possible  in  their  fulfilment, 
there  had  been  no  need  of  further  legislation.  A  convocation 
of  the  ecclesiastics  of  each  province  to  receive  and  publish 
the  decrees  of  Trent  would  have  been  all-sufficient.  When, 
therefore,  we  see  the  endless  iteration  with  which  the  guilty 
clergy  were  threatened  with  the  Tridentine  canons,  and  with 
other  new  or  revivified  penalties — as  at  the  councils  of  Milan 
in  1565  and  15821  and  at  those  of  Manfredonia  in  1567,  of 
Eavenna  in  1568,  of  Urbino  in  1569,  of  Florence  in  1573, 
of  Naples  in  1576,  of  Consenza  in  1579,  of  Salerno  in  1596, 
of  S.  Severino  in  1597,  and  of  Melfi  in  159 72 — we  can  only 


1  Concil.  Mediolariens.  ami.  1565, 
P.  ii.  Const,  xiv.  (Harduin.  X.  661) 
— Concil.  Mediolanens.  ann.  1582 
Const,  xiv.     (Ibid.  p.  1117). 

2  Concil.  Sipontin.  ann.    1567,  De 


Vit.  et  Honest.  Cleric. — Concil.  Ra- 
vennat.  ann.  1568,  De  Vit.  et  Honest. 
Cleric,  c.  v. — Concil.  Urbinat.  ann. 
1569,  De  Vit.  et  Honest.  Cleric,  c.  vi. 
—  Concil.    Florent.  ann.   1573,  Rubr. 


MARRIAGE    STILL   PRACTISED.  529 

conclude  that  the  evil  was  irremediable,  in  spite  of  the  well- 
meant  efforts  to  suppress  it,  or  to  throw  off  the  responsibility 
of  its  existence. 

Throughout  the  whole  extent  of  Central  Europe  the  Tri- 
dentine  canons  met  with  a  like  slackness  of  obedience.  Even 
the  question  of  sacerdotal  marriage,  which  had  been  raised 
by  the  council  to  the  dignity  of  a  point  of  faith,  was  stub- 
bornly contested,  and  was  not  yielded  until  after  a  protracted 
struggle. 

In  1569  we  find  the  synod  of  the  extensive  and  important 
province  of  Salzburg  virtually  dividing  its  clergy  into  two 
classes — those  who  haunt  the  taverns  under  pretext  of  getting 
their  meals,  but  really  for  the  purpose  of  indulging  in  drunken 
riots  with  their  parishioners,  and  those  who  keep  houses,  wfth 
concubines  under  the  guise  of  female  servants,  whom  they 
secretly  marry,  and  who  are  openly  known  by  their  husbands' 
names.1 

In  1565,  Anthony,  Archbishop  of  Prague,  promulgated  the 
council  of  Trent  in  his  provincial  synod.  He  was  a  man  of 
more  than  ordinary  vigor ;  he  had  been  the  imperial  orator 
at  Trent,  "understood  fully  the  views  of  the  council,  and  was 
not  likely  to  underrate  either  their  importance  or  their 
authority.  Armed  with  the  Tridentine  canons,  he  set  actively 
to  work  and  instituted  a  very  thorough  system  of  inquisitorial 
visitations,  which  ought  to  have  succeeded  if  success  were 
possible.     Yet,  after  the  lapse  of  thirteen  years,  in  a  special 


• 

xxxvn.  c.  3,  4. — Concil.  Neapol.  ann.  clesiastics  were  to  club  together  for 
1576,  cap.  xxn. — Concil.  Consentin.  the  same  purpose. — Synod.  Salisburg. 
ann.  1579,  Sess.  iv. — Concil.  Salernit.  ann.  1569,  Const,  xxvn.  c.  xviii.  xix. 
ann.  1596,  cap.  xviii. — Concil.  S.  Se-  xx.  xxi.  xxii.  (Hartzheim,  VII.  306- 
verin.  ann.  1597,  De  Vit.  et  Honest.  ,  8).  The  results  of  this  may  be 
Cleric. — Concil.  Amalfitan.  ann.  1597, '  guessed  when,  in  1616,  we  see  the 
De  Vit.  et  Honest.  Cleric,  c.  v. — (Lab-  i  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  in  his  in- 
bei  et  Coleti,  Supplement.  T.  V.  pp.  structions  for  a  general  visitation, 
827-1331.)  !  ordering  that  all  priests   should  re- 


1  To  meet  this  condition  of  affairs, 
the  synod  devised  an  elaborate  system, 
by  which  the  richer  clergy  were  di- 


:  move  their  concubines  to  the  distance 
of  six  miles,  and  that  they  should  not 
allow  their   illegitimate    children   to 


J  .    ,   ,     ,  ,  ..  ,      ,'  live  openly  with  them,  except  under 

rected  to  keep  as  domestics  respecta-  •  ,    i-  e  \-       v  aT\  Z 

ble  middle-aged  married  women  with    !P.e?;a     l™™°    from    hl™'  ~  Slatut' 

their  husbands,  while  the  poorer  ec -!  Vlsl.tat/T Sfl*£nT& A™'  1616' Tlt'  L 
r  I  c.  vi.  (Ibid.  IX.  266). 

34 


530 


THE    POST-TRIDENTINE    CHURCH 


mandate  issued  by  him  in  1578,  he  deplores  the  obstinate 
blindness  of  many  of  his  clergy,  who  still  believed,  with  the 
heretics,  that  marriage  was  not  incompatible  with  priesthood.1 

The  same  wilful  ignorance  apparently  existed  in  the  diocese 
of  Wurzburg,  for  Bishop  Julius,  in  1584,  found  it  necessary, 
in  his  episcopal  statutes,  to  discountenance  clerical  matri- 
mony and  to  prove  its  nullity  by  laboriously  quoting  innu- 
merable canons  and  decretals;  and  he  even  condescended  to 
remind  his  priesthood  that  in  taking  orders  they  had  willingly 
and  knowingly  entered  into  an  engagement  of  continence,  by 
the  consequences  of  which  they  must  be  prepared  to  abide.2 

A  provincial  synod  of  Gnesen,  of  which  the  date  is  un- 
certain, but  which  was  probably  held  in  1577,  deplored  the 
insane  audacity  displayed  by  ecclesiastics  in  marrying,  and 
threatened  them  with  the  Tridentine  anathema.3  This  warn- 
ing appears  to  have  been  completely  disregarded,  for  the 
Bishop  of  Breslau,  a  suffragan  of  the  metropolis  of  Gnesen, 
in  opening  his  diocesan  synod  in  1580,  still  complained  that 
many  of  his  clergy  were  guilty  of  this  perversity,  and  he  was 
at  some  pains  to  disavow  any  complicity  with  it,  or  any  con- 
nivance at  the  licentiousness  which  was  prevalent  among  the 
unmarried.4      In  1591,   the  synod  of  Olmutz  asserted  that 


1  It  would  seem  that  those  who  did 
not  marry  were  guilty  of  the  more 
venial  error  of  concubinage — "  Ple- 
rosque  etiam  prselatos  et  sacerdotes 
qui  de  monasteriorum  parochiarum- 
que  proventibus  et  beneficiis  ecclesi- 
asticis  vivunt,  magno  suo  dedecore, 
famse  et  existimationis  periculo,  maxi- 
moque  aliorum  scandalo,  denique  sa- 
lutis  suse  dispendio,  turpes  et  infames 
mulieres  vel  concubinas  alere  et  ex 
illis  illegitiuios  soboles  procreare : 
multos  insuper  invenimus  eo  erroris 
e*t  dementia?  prolapsos,  ut  cum  hsere- 
ticis  putent  sibi  licere,  una  cum 
sacerdotio,  etiam  copulatas  foemiuas 
habere." — Decret.  Reformat.  Pragens 
(Hartzheim,  VII.  53). 

2  Statut.  Rural.  Julii  Wirceburg. 
P.  in.  c.  iv.  (Gropp  Script.  Rer. 
Wirceburg.  I.  471-4).  It  is  somewhat 
remarkable  that  Bishop  Julius  attri- 
butes the  prohibition  of  marriage  to 
the  Council  of  Nicaea.     After  describ- 


ing the  custom  of  the  Greek  church, 
he  proceeds,  "  Permissio  vero  et  con- 
suetudo  ilia  duravit  usque  ad  Nicse- 
num  concilium,  in  quo  generali  decreto 
abrogata  est,  statutumque  ne  aliquis 
habens  uxorem  consecretur  sacerdos" 
—  a  falsification  which  is  equally 
singular,  whether  it  proceeded  from 
ignorance  or  fraud,  and  an  admission 
that  celibacy  was  not  of  apostolic 
origin  which  was  rare  in  a  Catholic 
prelate  of  that  period. 

3  Quoniam  nonnulli  ex  sacerdotibus 
qui  in  cseteris  se  Catholicos  esse  pro- 
fitentur,  eo  audacise  atque  dementias 
progrediuntur,  ut  sibi  uxores  ducere 
licere  existiment,  et  de  facto  nuptias 
celebrent,  etc.  — Synod.  Gnesnens.  c. 
xxxiii.  (Hartzheim,  VII.  891). 

4  Synod.  Wratislav.  ami.  1580 
(Hartzheim,  VII.  890).  "  Magnam 
quidem  clericorum  quorundam  prse- 
sertim  parochorum,  in  banc  dicecesin 


CORRUPTIONS   FAVORABLE   TO   HERESY 


531 


many  clerks  in  holy  orders  contracted  pretended  marriages, 
and  were  not  ashamed  of  the  families  growing  up  publicly 
around  them,  while  others  indulged  in  scandalous  concu- 
binage with  women,  whom  they  styled  housekeepers  or 
cooks.1  Even  as  late  as  1628,  at  the  synod  of  Osnabruck, 
the  orator  who  opened  the  proceedings  inveighed  in  the  vilest 
terms  against  the  female  companions  of  the  clergy,  who  not 
only  occupied  the  position  of  wives,  but  were  even  dignified 
with  the  title.2 

We  have  seen  above  that  the  highest  authorities  in  the 
church  did  not  hesitate  openly  to  attribute  the  origin  and 
success  of  the  Eeformation  to  the  scandalous  corruption  of 
the  ecclesiastical  body.  The  council  of  Trent  had  not  re- 
sulted in  removing  the  scandal,  and  clear-sighted  prelates 
were  not  wanting  who  proclaimed  that  the  same  causes  con- 
tinued to  operate  and  to  produce  the  same  effect.  Anthony, 
Archbishop  of  Prague,  in  his  synod  of  1565,  took  occasion 
to  declare  that  the  misfortunes  of  the  church  were  attribu- 
table to  the  dissoluteness  of  the  clergy,  and  that  the  extirpa- 
tion of  heresy  could  best  be  effected  by  reforming  the 
depraved  morals  and  filthy  lives  of  ecclesiastics.3     These 


irrepsisse  perversitatem,  quod  occa- 
sione  rei  familiaris  et  ceconomicae 
curse  necessitate,  publico  vel  privato 
matrimonii  vinculo  mulieribus  fidem 
hactenus  dedissent,  liberosque  suinmo 
cum  dedecore  et  scandalo  procreas- 
sent :  fidem  autem  Domino  Deo  et 
ecclesiae  datam  irritam  fecissent." 

1  Synod.  Olomucens.  aim.  1591,  c. 
xiii.  (Hartzheim,  VIII.  352).— "  Hinc 
nonnulli  ad  matrimonia  praetensa, 
post  ordines  sacros  susceptos  convo- 
lare,  atque  eas  quibus  illicite  copulati 
sunt  legitimarum  uxorum  loco  habere, 
nee  minus  cum  illis  quam  cum  liberis 
incontinentiae  nefandae  testibus,  pub- 
lice  circumvehi  non  verentur." — In 
endeavoring  to  put  an  end  to  this 
state  of  affairs,  the  synod  manifested 
its  estimation  of  the  morals  of  the 
priesthood  by  renewing  the  hideous 
suggestions  which  we  have  seen  in 
the  ninth  and  thirteenth  centuries. 
Pastors  were  allowed  to  have  with 
them   the   near   relations  authorized 


I  by  the  Nicene  canon,  but,  in  view  of 
|  the  assaults  of  the  tempter,  were  pru- 
dently advised  not  to  let  them  reside 
in  their  houses. 

2  Synod.  Osnabrug.  ann.  1628(Hartz- 
heim,  IX.  431). — "Foveant  domi  suae 

;  focarias,  alant  spurcas  lupas  ac  lenas 
j  pudicitiae  prostitutrices  suae,  expug- 
|  natrices  alienae,  quas  uxorum  et  con- 
jugum  non  tantum  locum  habeant, 
J  sed  nomine  etiam  dignentur." — As 
usual,  a  distinction  is  drawn  between 
those  who  thus  formed  permanent, 
though  illicit  connections,  and  others 
who  indulged  in  promiscuous  license — 
"  alii  vaga  dissoluti  lascivia,  tanquam 
equi  emissarii,  ad  incontinentissimum 
quodque  scortum  aut  adulteram  ad- 
hinniunt  trahuntque  ingentes  libero- 
rum  spuriorum  greges.  Haec  in  pro- 
patulo  sunt ;  quae  vero  in  occulto 
fiunt  ab  ipsis,  turpe  est  et  dicere." 

3  Statut.    Diceces.     Pragens.     ann. 
1565  (Hartzheim,  VII.  26). 


532  THE   POST-TR  I  DENTINE   CHURCH. 

complaints  continued  long.  In  1609,  at  the  synod  of  Con- 
stance, the  Eev.  Dr.  Hamerer,  in  an  official  oration  to  the 
assembled  prelates,  deplored  the  continued  spread  of  heresy, 
which  he  boldly  told  them  was  caused  by  the  perpetually 
increasing  immorality  that  pervaded  all  classes  of  the 
priesthood.  The  Eeformation  had  begun,  had  derived  its 
strength  and  was  still  prospering  through  their  weakness, 
which  rendered  them  odious  to  the  people,  and  made  the 
Catholic  religion  a  by-word  and  a  shame.1  In  1610,  the 
Bishop  of  Antwerp,  in  a  synodal  address,  attributed  the  evils 
which  had  so  grievously  afflicted  the  church  of  Flanders  for 
nearly  half  a  century,  to  the  same  cause,  and,  in  recounting 
the  various  successive  efforts  at  internal  reform  made  since 
the  council  of  Trent,  he  pronounced  each  one  to  have  been 
a  failure  in  consequence  of  the  incurable  obstinacy  of  the 
clergy.2  Damhouder,  a  celebrated  jurisconsult  of  Flanders, 
whose  unquestioned  piety  and  orthodoxy  gained  for  him  the 
confidence  of  Charles  V.  and  Philip  II.,  does  not  hesitate  to 
speak  of  the  clergy  of  his  time  as  men  who  rarely  lived  up 
to  their  professions,  and  who  as  a  general  rule  were  scoundrels 
distinguished  for  their  indulgence  in  all  manner  of  evil.3  In 
a  similar  mood  the  Bishop  of  Bois-le-Duc,  in  opening  his 
synod  of  1612,  declared  that  the  scandalous  lives  of  the 
ecclesiastics  were  a  source  of  corruption  to  the  laity,  and  a 
direct  encouragement  of  heresy.4  So,  in  1625,  the  synod  of 
Osnabruck  gave  as  its.  reason  for  endeavoring  to  enforce  the 
Tridentine  canons  that  the  true  religion  was  despised  on 


1  Quid    ihsuper    alise    causae    esse  j  outspoken   in    his    denunciations    of 
suspicamini,   quod    prsefata?    hsereses  j  the  wickedness  of  the  clergy  (Ibid.  p. 


usque  in  hanc  diem  non  niodo  non 
cessaverint,  sed  multis  variisque  am- 
plificatse  accessionibus  accreverint 
semper  et  indies  grandescant  adhuc, 
quam  quod  clerus  tarn  superior  quam 
inferior,  tantis  ecclesise  serumnis  et 
calamitatibus  non  modo  nihil  afficia- 
tur,  sed  longe  insolescat,  guise,  era- 
pulse,  et  libidini  obscoense  indulgeat. 
— Synod.  Constant,  ami.  1609  (Hartz- 
heim,  VIII.  838).  Another  orator,  the 
Jesuit  Dr.  Mayer,  though  more  cau- 
tious in  his  deductions,  was  equally 


831). 

*  Synod.  Antverp.  aim.  1610  (Hartz- 
heim,  VIII.  979). 

3  Quum  ipsos  clericos  satis  raro 
vivere  conspiciamus  juxta  ipsorum 
professionem,  sed  ut  scelerati  nebu- 
lones  multa  indigna  mala  perpe- 
trantes. — Damhouder.  Rerum  Crimin. 
Praxis  cap.  xxxvii.  No.  25  (Antverp. 
1601). 

1  Synod.  Boscodunens.  II.  ann. 
1612  (Hartzheim,  IX.  200), 


PERSISTENT   CORRUPTION    OF    THE   CHURCH 


533 


account  of  the  depraved  morals  of  its  ministers,  whose  crimes 
were  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the  stubbornness  of  the 
heretics.1 

The  Thirty  Years'  War  proved  a  more  effectual  bar  to  the 
spread  of  heresy  than  these  fruitless  efforts  to  cure  the  in- 
curable malady  of  the  church.  After  the  Peace  of  West- 
phalia, there  was  no  further  need  to  appeal  to  the  dread  of 
proselyting  Lutheranism  as  a  stimulus  to  virtue,  but  still  the 
same  process  of  reasoning  appears  in  exhortations  to  regain 
the  forfeited  respect  of  the  community.  Thus,  in  1652,  the 
Bishop  of  Munster  expressed  his  horror  at  the  obstinacy  with 
which,  in  spite  of  fines,  edicts,  and  canons,  his  clergy  persisted 
in  retaining  their  concubines,  and  he  declared  that  the  dis- 
cordance between  the  professions  and  the  practice  of  the 
priesthood  rendered  them  a  stench  in  the  nostrils  of  the  people 
and  destroyed  the  authority  of  religion  itself;3  and  in  1662  the 
synod  of  Cologne  deplored  that  the  notorious  want  of  respect 
felt  for  the  ministers  of  Christ  was  the  direct  result  of  their 
own  immorality.3 

It  is  evident  from  all  this  that  the  standard  of  ecclesiastical 
morals  had  not  been  raised  by  the  efforts  of  the  Tridentine 


!  Cum  in  sacerdotum  et  clericorum 
criinine  sat  causae  imperitae  plebi 
videatur  cur  haereses  non  deserantur 
.  .  .  facileque  consequatur  ut  quorum 
vita  contemptui  est,  eorum  quoque  doc- 
trina  proculcetur  (Synod.  Osnabrug. 
ann.  1625  cap.  v.  (Hartzheim,  IX. 
350).  The  synod  was  obliged  to  take 
strong  ground  against  the  inveterate 
abuse  by  which  beneficiaries  enriched 
their  illegitimate  children  out  of  the 
patrimony  of  the  church.  No  con- 
cealment of  these  relationships  was 
apparently  thought  necessary  (Ibid, 
cap.  ix.). 

These  well-meant  efforts  of  the 
synod  were  of  little  avail.  Three 
years  later,  the  orator  of  a  succeeding 
synod  bewailed  the  continued  ex- 
cesses of  the  clergy  most  forcibly ,  and 
his  indignation  is  particularly  excited 
at  abuses  which  he  describes  in 
language  almost  identical  with  that 
of  the  Anglo-Saxon  canonists  of  the 
tenth  century — "  nee  sine  dolore  et 
gemitu  versantur   ob   oculos   aliquo* 


rum  concubinae  et  damnato  procreati 
coitu  liberi  splendidius  ornati  quam 
sancti,  meretrices  cultiores  quam  Di- 
vorum  imagines,  et,  quod  dicere  hor- 
ror est,  direpta  e  sacrariis  supellectili 
sacra,  instrumentoque  ecclesiastico, 
focariae  stolatae  amiciuntur,  et  e  pan- 
nis  Christi,  insolentium  finguntur  ves- 
tiura  novitates." — Synod.  Osnabrug. 
ann.  1628  (Ibid.  p.  428). 

2  Synod.  Monasteriens.  ann.  1652 
(Hartzheim,  IX.  786-7).  —  "Quam 
parum  vita  cleri  et  pastorum  cum 
doctrina  et  professione  concordet, 
unde  fit  ut  authoritas  sanctae  lidei 
pericletetur  et  eorum  nomen  foeteat 
qui  Christi  bonus  odor  esse  deberent 
in  omni  loco." 

3  Synod.  Colon,  ann.  1662  P.  III. 
Tit.  i.  cap.  1  §  iii  (Hartzheim,  IX. 
1006). — "  Et  sane  quod  sacrorum  min- 
istris  debitus  non  tribuatur  honos  non 
nisi  vitae  nimis  dissolutae  et  depravatis 
clericorum  moribus  est  imputandum." 


534 


THE    POST-TRIDENTINE    CHURCH 


fathers,  and  yet  a  study  of  the  records  of  church  discipline 
shows  that  with  the  increasing  decency  and  refinement  of 
society  during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  the 
open  and  cynical  manifestations  of  license  among  the  clergy 
become  gradually  rarer.  It  may  well  be  doubted,  neverthe- 
less, whether  their  lives  were  in  reality  much  purer.  A  few 
spasmodic  efforts  were  made  to  enforce  the  Nicene  canon, 
prohibiting  the  residence  of  women,  but  they  were  utterly 
fruitless,  and  were  so  recognized  by  all  parties;  and  the 
energies  of  the  arch-priests  and  bishops  were  directed  to 
regulating  the  character  of  the  handmaidens,  who  were 
admitted  to  be  a  necessary  evil.  The  devices  employed  for 
this  purpose  were  varied,  and  repeated  with  a  frequency 
which  shows  their  insufficiency;  and  it  would  be  scarce  worth 
our  while  to  do  more  than  indicate  some  sources  of  reference 
for  the  curious  student  who  may  wish  to  follow  up  the 
reiteration  which  we  have  traced  already  through  so  many 
successive  centuries.1  Among  them,  however,  one  new  feature 
shows  itself,  which  indicates  the  growing  respect  paid  to  the 


1  Collect.  Synod.  Mechlin.  Tom.  I. 
pp.  39,  57. —  Synod.  Mechlin,  ann. 
1570,  Tit.  xiv.  (Ibid.  I.  118).— 
Synod.  Lovaniens.  ann.  1574  (Ibid.  I. 
191). — Synod.  Provin.  Mechlin,  aim. 
1607,  Tit.  xvm.  c.  viii.  (Ibid.  I.  395). 
— Synod.  Diceces.  Mechlin,  ann.  1607, 
Tit.  xvn.  c.  vi.  (Ibid.  II.  237).— 
Congregat.  Archipresbyt.  ann.  1613 
(Ibid.  II.  271).—  Tertia  Congregat. 
Episc.  ann.  1624  (Ibid.  I.  466).— 
Ibid.  I.  514. 

Synod.  Augustan,  ann.  1567,  P.  m. 
c.  ii.  (Hartzheim,  VII.  182).— Synod. 
Constant,  ann.  1567,  P.  Ii.  Tit.  i.  c.  9. 
(Ibid.  VII.  541).— Synod.  Ruremond. 
ann.  1570  (Ibid.  VII.  653).— Synod. 
Boscodunens.  ann.  1571,  Tit.  xiv.  c. 
ii.  (Ibid.  VII.  723).— Synod.  War- 
miens,  ann.  1577,  c.  i.  (Ibid.  VII.  871). 
— Synod.  Mettens.  ann.  1604,  c.  xlviii. 
liii.  lxii.  (Ibid.  X.  768-70).— Synod. 
Brixiens.  ann.  1603,  De  discip.  cler. 
c.  xviii.  (Ibid.  VIII.  576).— Synod. 
Namurcens.  ann.  1604,  Tit.  vm.  c.  vi. 
(Ibid.  VIII.  623).— Synod.  Constant, 
ann.  1609,  P.  n.  Tit.  xvii.  c.  7  (Ibid. 


VIII.    906).— Synod.    Mettens.    ann. 

1610, Tit.  xi.  c.  xi.  (Ibid.  VIII.  962).— 

Synod.  Antverp.  ann.  1610.  Tit.  xvn. 

c.    vi.    (Ibid.    VIII.   1003).'— Statut. 

Visitat.   Salisburgens.  ann.  1616,  Tit. 

i.    c.    vi.    (Ibid.    IX.    266).  — Synod. 

Iprens.   ann.   1629,  c.   xx.  (Ibid.  IX. 

496). — Synod.  Namurcens.  ann.  1639, 

Tit.  xix.  c.  ix.  x.  (Ibid.  IX.  592-3).— 
j  Synod.  Audomar.  ann.  1640,  Tit.  xiv. 
;  c.  vii.  (Ibid.  X.  802).— Synod.  Colon. 
|  ann.  1651,  P.  n.  c.  ii.  §  1  (Ibid.  IX. 
i  742). — Synod.  Hildesheim.  ann.  1652 

(Ibid.    IX.    805-6).  — Synod.    Colon. 

ann.   1662,  P.  in.   Tit.   ii.   c.   1,  2,  3 

(Ibid.  IX.  1008-11).— Statut.  Synod. 

Trevirens.  ann.  1678,  c.   xi.  xii.  xiii. 

xiv.   (Ibid.  X.  60).— Statut.  Synod. 

Argentinens.    ann.    1687,  De  clericis 

addit.    i.    (Ibid.    X.    180).— Synod. 

Brugens.  ann.  1693,  Tit.  y.  §  2  (Ibid. 

X.  202).— Cod.  Canon.  Mettens.  ann. 

1699,  Tit.  x.  c.  xviii.  (Ibid.  X.  245).— 

Synod.  Bisuntin.  ann.  1707,  Tit.  ii.  c. 

xxv.    (Ibid.   X.   291).  — Synod.   Cul- 

mens.  et  Pomesan.  ann.  1745,  c.  ix. 

(Ibid.  X.  517). 


ABUSE    OF    THE    CONFESSIONAL.  535 

appearance  of  decency — complaints  that  concubines  are  kept 
under  the  guise  of  sisters  and  nieces. 

A  darker  and  more  dangerous  sin,  however,  begins  during 
this  period  to  attract  more  attention  than  of  old.     The  power 
of  the  confessional,  one  of  the  most  effective  engines  invented 
by  the  ingenuity  of  man  for  enslaving  the  human  mind,  was 
peculiarly  liable  to  abuse,  while  the  relations  existing  be- 
tween the  confessor  and  his  female  penitents  rendered  guilt 
under  such  circumstances  especially  atrocious.     It  is  not  easy 
to  imagine  temptation  more  dangerous,  and,  to  a  priesthood 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  could  not  be  restrained  from  the 
grossest  and  most  criminal  indulgences,  such  temptation  must 
frequently   have   proved    irresistible.      In   1561,    Pius   IT. 
issued  a  special  Bull  directed  against  the  seduction  of  women 
by  their   confessors,   a  crime  which  he  describes  as  being 
especially  prevalent  in  Spain,1  and,  in  1622,  Gregory  XIY. 
republished   this   Bull,   which   he  strengthened   by  further 
provisions,  and  made  universally  applicable  throughout  all 
Catholic  countries.2     The  local  ecclesiastical  legislation  of 
the  period  is  surcharged  with  innumerable  minute  directions 
as   to   the   form  and  structure  of  confessionals;'  restricting 
female  penitents,  unless  dangerously  ill,  from  being  heard 
except  in  church  and  by  daylight,  and  prescribing  the  rela- 
tive positions  to  be  maintained  by  confessor  and  penitent,  all 

1  Bull.  Cum  sicutnuper  (Mag.  Bull,  almost  universal — "  Elle  vient,  cette 
Roman.  II.  44).  brebis,  cette  femme,  cette  enfant  qui 

TT   .         ...       .   .  .    r<       -est  tombee  dans  le  peche.     Christ  l'a 

2  Bull.  Universi  Dommici  Gregis  due .  le  bon  prfetre  la  trouve,  il 
(Ibid.  III.  432).                                            doit    la    rendre   a   Christ.      Mais    le 

These  evils  commenced  to  attract  mauvaig  6tre  ]a  flatte>  n  i>eXcuse,  il 
attention  almost  as  soon  as  enforced  ^  dR ,  Je  gaig  bien  qu,Qn  ne  peut 
celibacy  coexisted  with  auricular  con-  tonjonrg  vivre  ehastement  et  se  garder 
fession.  As  early  as  398,  the  First  d  '  6(.hg>  Peu  a  peu  }1  1'attire  a  lui; 
Council  of  Toledo  (can.  vi.)  orders  u  r61oigne  de  Christ  plus  que  jamais. 
"  ne  qua  puella  Dei  aut  familiantatem  _Q  fr5re  ,  ne  touche  pas  cette  corde. 
habeat  cum  confessore."  Occasional  _Je  ne  nomme  personne,  mais  il  faut 
references  in  the  preceding  pages  ;  dire  la  vftitgg  Le  mauvais  pr6tre  la 
show  the  perpetuation  of  the  scandal ;  flatte  ■  n  pentraine,  de  maniere  que 
and  to  these  may  be  added  the  testi-  :  ceUe  pauvrebrebisperdela  tete.  Loin 
mony  of  Savonarola,  who,  at  the  dg  la  rendre  a  Christ,  il  la  garde  pom- 
close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  graphi-  ;  ^  Touteg  leg  cit6g  d»Italie  sont 
cally  describes  the  abuses  of  the  con- j  leineg  de  ceg  horreurs."— Perrens, 
fessional,   which   he   declares   to  be  j  J6rome  Savonarolej  p.  71. 


536 


THE    POST-TRIDENTINE    CHURCH 


of  which  tends  to  show  how  much  men's  minds  were  excited 
by  the  subject,  and  how,  as  usual,  the  church  sought  palliatives 
for  the  evil  to  which  she  dared  not  apply  a  radical  cure. 

This  abuse  of  the  confessional  naturally  led  to  an  even 
more  detestable  abuse  of  the  power  of  absolution,  whereby 
the  spiritual  director  absolved  his  partner  in  guilt.1  So  vile 
a  prostitution  of  the  sacrament  of  penitence  could  not  but 
arouse  the  sharpest  indignation,  as  it  was  not  only  an  in- 
centive to  the  foulest  immorality,  but  also  tended  directly  to 
bring  the  whole  system  into  contempt.  In  1661,  therefore, 
the  provincial  synod  of  Cambrai,  and  in  1663,  a  congregation 
of  arch-priests  of  the  province  of  Mechlin,  revived  the  ancient 
rule  that  no  confessor  should  have  power  to  grant  absolution 
in  such  cases  to  his  paramour,  except  in  articulo  mortis.2  This 
seems  to  have  aroused  considerable  opposition  and  no  little 
discussion,  for,  at  a  convocation  of  bishops,  held  at  Brussels 
in  January,  1665,  it  was  the  first  question  submitted  for  debate 
by  the  Archbishop,  Andreas  Creusen.3  The  question,  how- 
ever, still  remained  unsettled,  for,  although  the  power  to 
grant  such  absolution  was  specially  excepted  in  all  com- 
missions issued  to  confessors,  the  subject  again  came  up  for 
discussion  at  the  synod  of  Namur,  in  1698,  and  the  practice 
was  peremptorily  forbidden  for  the  future.4 

In  the  province  of  Besanc,on,  a  statute  of  1689  declares 
that  although  the  abuse  had  long  been  prohibited,  yet  it  was 
still  continually  practised.  A  formal  enunciation  was  there- 
fore considered  necessary,  taking  away  the  power  of  absolu- 
tion in  all  such  cases — and  this  regulation  had  to  be  repeated 


1  Occasional  references  to  this  prac- 
tice may  be  found  in  earlier  times. 
See,  for  instance,  Concil.  Monaste- 
ries, ann.  1279,  c.  xv.  (Hartzheim, 
111.  649). — Suppression  of  Monaste- 
ries, No.  xvii.  (Camden  Soc.  Pub.). — 
Statut.  Synod.  Tornacens.  ann.  1520, 
c.  vii.  (Hartzheim,  VI.  156). 

2  Synod.  Camerac.  ann.  1661,  c.  xi. 
(Hartzheim,  IX.  888).— Collect.Synod. 
Mechlin.  II.  319. 

3  Ut  reservetur  per  totam  provin- 
ciam    iste    casus  :    "  Si   confessarius 


incident,  quod  Deus  avertat,  in  pec- 
catum  carnis  cum  aliqua,  earn  non 
possit  absolvere."  —  Collect.  Synod. 
Mechlin.  I.  559. 

4  Supervenit  qusedam  qusestio  super 
reservatione  potestatis  absolvendi 
complicem  in  peccato  carnali  ex- 
terno;  quapropter  jussimus  impos- 
terum  exprimi  id  non  licere,  prout 
habetur  in  commissione  ad  excipi- 
endas  confessiones,  et  in  omnibus 
expeditionibus  ad  curam  animarum. 
— Synod.  Namurcens.  ann.  1698,  c. 
xxviii.  (Hartzheim,  X.  219). 


THE   GALLICAN   CHURCH.  537 

in  1707.1  In  1742,  at  Namur,  it  wars  again  found  requisite  to 
renew  the  prohibition/  and  not  long,  after,  Benedict  XIV. 
issued  his  Bull,  "  Sacramentum  Pcenitentise,"  by  which  he 
formally  and  absolutely  condemned  the  practice.  Even  this 
was  insufficient  to  put  an  end  to  it,  for,  in  1768,  we  find  the 
Bishop  of  Ypres  obliged  to  recall  to  the  attention  of  his 
clergy  this  Bull  and  that  of  Gregory  XIY.,  and  to  threaten 
excommunication  against  those  who  persisted  in  trans- 
gressing either  of  them.3 

In  France  the  influence  of  the  Tridentine  canons  had  been 
equally  nnsatisfactory.  At  a  royal  council  held  in  1560, 
which  resolved  upon  the  assembly  of  the  States  at  Orleans, 
Charles  de  Marillac,  Bishop  of  Vienne,  declared  that  ecclesi- 
astical discipline  was  almost  obsolete,  and  that  no  previous 
time  had  seen  scandals  so  freqnent  or  the  life  of  the  clergy  so 
reprehensible.4  The  colloquy  of  Poissy,  in  1561,  of  course 
had  no  result,  and  the  effect  of  the  council  of  Trent  on  the 
Gallican  church  was  imperceptible.  In  1564  the  Cardinal  of 
Lorraine,  not  long  after  his  return  from  the  council,  held  a 
provincial  synod  at  Eheims,  where  he  contented  himself  with 
declaring  that  the  ancient  canons  enjoining  chastity  should  be 
enforced.5  The  next  year,  1565,  a .  synod  held  at  Cambrai 
reduced  the  penalties  to  a  minimum,  and  afforded  every  op- 
portunity for  purchasing  immunity,  by  enacting  that  those 
who  consorted  with  loose  women,  and  who  remained  obdu- 
rate to  warnings  and  reprehension,  should  be  punished  at  the 


1  Synod.  Bisuntin.  aim.  1707,  Tit.  :  frequens,  la  vie  des  ministres  plus  re- 
xiv.  c.  xiv.  (Hartzheim,  X.  323).  prenable,  et  les  tumultes  des  peuples 

«  Nullus  potent  in  materia  venerea    g1™  *?&£-**"•  r**    la    Place> 

v ,      •  •  Lstat.  de  Relie.  etc.     Liv.  m. 

excipere  confessionem  secum  in  pec-        T,  .,       °  ,.  e   .,      TT 

cato  mortal!  externo  complicis,  secus        *rom  *he  Proc5e*,n88  °f  the  ,??« 
inaliismateriis.-Synod.Namurcens.    ?"?not    **«}    of    Poitiers    m    1d60 

ann.  1742,  c.  iv.  (Hartzheim,  X.  487).  !  (C.haP'  *£  f*  X>)  l*  1S  evidf1nt  that 

'    I  priests  not  infrequently  secretly  mar- 

3  Instruct.  Pastoral.'  J.  H.  de  Wav-  ried  their  concubines,  and  when  the 
rans  Episc.  Iprens.  ann.  1708, c.  xcvii.  woman  was  a  Calvinist,  her  equivocal 
(Hartzheim,  X.  638.)  !  position  became  a  matter  of  grave  con- 

*  Car,  oultre  la  variete  des  doc-  '  tlt7J^^T^\  ^^ 
.  .  '    .       .,  ,      ,.     .   ,.       i  feynod.  Cjall.  Kelorm.  I.  18.) 

tnnes,  qui  veit  oncques  la  discipline      '  y 

ancienne    de    l'eglise    plus   dissipee,        5  Concil.  Remens.  ann.  16G4,  Stat. 

plus  abbatue,  plus  negligee,  les  abus    xvn. 

plus    multiplies,    les    scandales   plus 


538 


THE    POST-TRIDENTINE    CHURCH. 


pleasure  of  the  officials.1  '  In  two  years  more  the  same  coun- 
cil was  fain  to  ask  the  aid  of  the  secular  arm  to  remove 
the  concubines  of  its  clergy2 — a  course  again  suggested  as  late 
as  1631.3  The  terms  in  which  Claude,  Bishop  of  Evreux,  at 
his  synod  of  1576,  announced  his  intention  of  taking  steps  to 
eject  those  who  for  the  future  should  persist  in  their  immo- 
rality show  not  only  that  such  measures  were  even  yet  an 
innovation,  but  also  indicate  little  probability  of  their  being 
successful.4  The  council  of  Rheims,  in  1583,  while  proclaim- 
ing that  the  Tridentine  canons  shall  be  enforced  on  all  concu- 
binary  priests,  manifests  a  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  amount 
of  respect  which  they  will  receive  in  threatening  that  those 
who  are  contumacious  shall  be  subdued  by  the  secular  arm.5 
The  council  of  Tours,  in  the  same  year,  deplores  that  the 
whole  ecclesiastical  body  is  regarded  with  aversion  by  the 
good  and  pious  on  account  of  the  scandals  perpetrated  by  a 
portion  of  them.  To  cure  this  evil,  the  residence  of  suspected 
women,  even  when  connected  by  blood,  is  forbidden,  as  well 
as  of  the  children  acknowledged  to  be  sprung  from  such 
unions,  and  various  penalties  are  denounced  against  offenders.6 
The  council  of  Avignon,  in  1594,  declares  that  the  numerous 
decrees  relative  to  the  morals  and  manners  of  the  clergy  are 
either  forgotten  or  neglected,  and  then  proceeds  to  forbid  the 
residence  of  suspected  women.7  That  of  Bordeaux,  in  1624, 
earnestly  warns  the  clergy  of  the  province  not  to  allow  their 


1  Concil.  Camerac.  arm.  1565,  Rubr. 
vni.  c.  3.  "  Si  quis  hac  parte  peccave- 
rit,  monitus  castigatusque,  nisi  ani- 
mum  et  vitam  mutaverit,  graviter 
ordinarii  arbitrio  puniatur." — At  this 
council,  which  was  held  in  June, 
1565,  the  council  of  Trent  was  form- 
ally adopted.  As  forming  part  of 
Flandre  Frangaise,  Cambrai  may  pro- 
perly be  considered  as  French,  though 
Francis  I.,  by  the  treaty  of  Madrid  in 
1526,- had  been  compelled  to  surren- 
der his  sovereignty,  and  till  a  hun- 
dred years  later  it  continued  under 
Spanish  dominion. 

2  Concil.  Camerac.  ann.  1567,  c.  iii. 
(Hartzheim,  VII.  216.) 

3  Synod.  Camerac.  ann.  1631,  Tit. 
xviii.  c.  xiv.     (Ibid.  IX.  562.) 


4  Denuntiamus  omnibus  dkecesis 
nostri  ecclesiasticis  viris,  nisi  a  die 
hujus  synodi,  si  aliquas  habent  mu- 
lieres  suspectas,  a  se  expulerint  et  ab 
incontinentia  destiterint  .  .  .  nos  ad- 
versus  deprehensos  progressuros  us- 
que ad  privationem  beneficiorum. — 
Claudii  Episc.  Ebroicens.  Statut.  cap. 
in.  §  1.  (Migne's  Patrol.  Tom.  147,  pp. 
244-5.) 

5  Concil.  Remens.  ann.  1583,  cap. 
xviii.  §  5.     (Harduin.  X.  1293.) 

5  Concil.  Turon.  ann.  1583,  cap. 
xv.     (Ibid.  p.  1481.) 

'  Concil.  Avenionens.  ann.  1594, 
can.  xxxii.  (Ibid.  p.  1854.) 


THE  CHURCH  IN  FRANCE.  539 

sisters  and  nieces  to  live  in  their  houses,  and  especially  not 
to  sleep  in  the  same  room  with  them;1  and  various  other 
synods  held  during  the  period  repeated  the  well-known  regu- 
lations on  the  subject,  which  are  only  of  interest  as  showing 
how  little  they  were  respected.2 

No  one,  in  fact,  who  is  familiar  with  the  popular  literature 
of  France  during  that  period  can  avoid  the  conviction  that 
the  ecclesiastical  body  was  hopelessly  infected  with  the  cor- 
ruption which,  emanating  from  the  foulest  court  in  Christen- 
dom, spread  its  contagion  throughout  the  land.  If  Eabelais 
and  Bonaventure  des  Periers  reflect  the  depravity  which  was 
universal  under  Francis  I.,  Brantome,  Beroalde  de  Verville 
and  Noel  du  Fail  continue  the  record  of  infamy  under  Cathe- 
rine de  Medicis  and  her  children.3  The  genealogy  of  sin  is 
carried  on  by  Tallemant  des  Eeaux,  Bussy-Rabutin  and  the 
crowd  of  memoir  writers  who  flourished  in  the  Augustan 
age  of  French  literature.  Into  these  common  sewers  of  ini- 
quity it  is  not  worth  our  while  to  penetrate ;  but,  when  the 
high  places  in  the  hierarchy  were  filled  with  men  to  whom 
the  very  name  of  virtue  was  a  jest,  we  need  not  hesitate  to 
conclude  that  the  humbler  members  of  the  church  were 
equally  regardless  of  their  obligations  to  God  and  man. 

Like  the  Calvinists  of  Scotland,  the  Huguenots  of  France 
accepted  sacerdotal  marriage  as  an  admitted  portion  of  the 


1  Concil.    Burdigalens.    ann.   1624, 
cap.  xiii.  §  2.     (Harduin.  XI.  96.) 

2  Synod.  Tornacens.  ann.  1574,  Tit. 
xii.  c.  5,  6,  7.    (Hartzheim,  VII.  780.) 


his  discourses  (Contes  et  Discours 
d'Eutrapel  No.  xx.)  to  the  evils  en- 
tailed by  celibacy  on  the  church  and 
on  society,  quoting  the  exclamation  of 
Cardinal     Contarini     to     Velly     tin 


—  Synod.  Audomarens.  ann.  1583,  £«""-"»-  ^uma/1IU  ™  veu->\  xue 
Tit  xvi  c  2  (Ibid  VII  947  )  Con  *rencn  ambassador,  "0  quse  mala  at- 
ciLBurdegalens.  ann.  15*83,  can.  xxi"  I  *****  in  ecolesia  coelibatus  ille  !"  It 
(Harduin.  X.  I360.)-Concil.  Bituri-  i  If  t™?,, that  sucth.  storie3  as  Frater 
cens.  ann.  1584,  Tit.  xlii.  can.  i_4.  j  Fecisti  '  are  not  historical  documents, 
(Ibid.  X.   1503-4.)-Concil.  Aquens.  !  ?et  £ey,h.ive,tllT, .vaJu°  aS  indJicat 


ann.  1585,  cap.  de  Vit.  et  Honestate 
Cleric.  (Ibid.  X.  1547.)— Concil. 
Narbonnens.  ann.  1609,  cap.  xli. 
(Ibid.  XI.  96.) 

3  Du  Fail,  whose  high  official  posi- 
tion in  the  Parlement  of  Rennes  pre* 


ing  the  drift  of  public  feeling  and  the 
convictions  forced  upon  the  minds  of 
the  people  by  the  irregularities  of  the 
clerical  profession.  The  same  lesson 
is  taught  by  Boccaccio,  Chaucer,  Pog- 
gio,  the  Cent  Nouvelles  Nouvelles, 
and  all  the  other  records  of  the  inte- 


cludes  the  supposition  of  any  tend". ;  rior  life  of  the  14th,  15th,  and  16th 
ency   to   Calvinism,   devotes    one   o*  '  centuries. 


540 


THE    POST-TRIDENTINE    CHURCH. 


declaration  of  revolt  against  Eome.  Calvin  himself  mani- 
fested his  contempt  for  all  the  ancient  prejudices  by  marry- 
ing, in  1539,  Idelette  de  Bure,  an  Anabaptist  widow.1  The 
Huguenot  Confession  of  Faith  was  drawn  up  by  him,  and  was 
adopted  by  the  first  national  synod,  held  at  Paris  in  1559. 
Of  course  the  Genevan  views  of  justification  swept  away  all 
the  accumulated  observances  of  sacerdotalism,  and  ascetic 
celibacy  shared  the  fate  of  the  rest.2  The  discipline  of  the 
Calvinist  church  with  regard  to  the  morality  of  its  ministers 
was  necessarily  severe.  The  peculiar  purity  expected  of  a 
pastor's  household  was  shown  by  the  rule  which  enjoined 
any  church  officer  whose  wife  was  convicted  of  adultery  to 
dismiss  her  absolutely,  under  pain  of  deposition,  while  lay- 
men, under  such  circumstances,  were  exhorted  to  be  reconciled 
to  their  guilty  partners.3  Any  lapse  from  virtue  on  the  part 
of  a  minister  was  visited  with  peremptory  deposition  ;4  nor 
was  this  a  mere  idle  threat  such  as  were  too  many  of  the 
innumerable  decrees  of  the  Catholic  councils  quoted  above, 
for  the  proceedings  of  various  synods  show  that  it  was  car- 
ried sternly  into  execution.  A  list  of  such  vagrant  and  de- 
posed ministers  was  even  kept  and  published  to  the  churches, 
with  personal  descriptions  of  the  individuals,  that  they  might 
not  be  able  to  impose  on  the  unwary.     Indeed,  the  national 


1  Idelette  apparently  had  a  stern 
and  self-centred  soul,  worthy  of  her 
mate.  See  Calvin's  curious  account 
of  her  death-bed,  in  a  letter  to 
Fare.l.  (Calvini  Epistolse,  p.  111. 
Genevse,  1617.)  His  grief  was  doubt- 
less sincere,  but  his  friends  were  able 
to  compliment  him  on  his  not  allow- 
ing domestic  affliction  to  interfere 
with  his  customary  routine  of  labor. 
(Ibid.  p.  116.) 

2  I  have  not  access  to  the  original, 
but  quote  the  following  from  Quick's 
"rSynodicon  in  Gallia  Reformata,"  Lon- 
don, 1692 — "Art.  xxiv.  .  .  .  We  do 
also  reject  those  means  which  men  j 
presumed  they  had,  whereby  they 
might  be  redeemed  before  God  ;  for 
they  derogate  from  the  satisfaction  of 
the  Death  and  Passion  of  Jesus  Christ.  | 
Finally,  We  hold  Purgatory  to  be 
none  other  than  a  cheat,  which  came 


but  of  the  same  shop :  from  which 
also  proceeded  monastical  vows,  pil- 
grimages, prohibitions  of  marriage 
and  the  use  of  meats,  a  ceremonious 
observation  of  days,  auricular  confes- 
sion, indulgences,  and  all  other  such 
like  matters,  by  which  Grace  and  Sal- 
vation may  be  supposed  to  be  deserv- 
ed. Which  things  we  reject,  not  only 
for  the  false  opinion  of  merit  which 
was  affixed  to  them,  but  also  because 
they  are  the  inventions  of  men,  and 
are  a  yoke  laid  by  their  sole  authority 
upon  conscience."  (Quick,  I.  xi.) — 
See  also  the  Confession  written  by 
Calvin  in  1562,  to  be  laid  before  the 
Emperor  Ferdinand  (Calvini  Epist. 
pp.  564-66). 

3  Discip.    Chap.   xnr.    can.   xxviii. 
(Quick,  I.  liii.) 

4  Ibid.  Chap.  i.  can.  xlvii. 


THE  CHURCH  IN  FRANCE.  541 

synod  of  Lyons,  in  1563,  went  so  far  as  to  punish  those  minis 
ters  who  brought  contempt  upon  the  church  by  unfitting  mar- 
riages;1 and  though  this  was  omitted  from  the  final  code  of 
discipline,  it  shows  the  exceeding  strictness  with  which  the 
internal  economy  of  the  ecclesiastical  establishment  of  the 
Huguenots  was  regulated. 

The  relations  of  the  Catholic  church  with  its  apostates 
were  somewhat  confused,  and  they  varied  with  the  political 
exigencies  of  the  situation.  Ecclesiastics  who  left  the  Catholic 
communion  did  not  hesitate  to  enter  into  matrimony  ;3  and 
when  the  desolation  of  civil  war  rendered  a  forced  tolerance 
of  the  new  religion  necessary,  their  position  was  recognized 
and  acknowledged  by  law.  Thus  in  the  Edicts  of  Pacifica- 
tion issued  by  Henry  III.  in  1576  and  1577  there  is  a  provi- 
sion which  admits  as  valid  the  marriages  theretofore  contracted 
by  all  priests  or  religious  persons  of  either  sex.  The  issue  of 
such  unions  was  declared  competent  to  inherit  the  personalty 
of  the.  parents  and  such  realty  as  either  parent  might  have 
acquired,  but  was  incapable  of  other  inheritance,  direct  or 
collateral.3  This  concession  was  renewed  and  somewhat  am- 
plified by  the  Edict  of  Nantes  in  1598,  which  was  intended 
as  a  final  settlement  of  the  religious  troubles.4  The  provision 
was,  however,  held  to  be  only  retrospective  in  its  action,  and 
was  not  admitted  as  legalizing  subsequent  marriages.   Thus  in 


•Chap.  iv.  Art.  xii.,  Chap.  xvi.  rious),  married  without  openly  aposta- 
Art.  xiv.  (Quick,  I.  32,  38).  tizing,  and  died  in  the  Catholic  faith. 

2  The  council  of  Rouen,  in  1581,  de-  I  Cardinal  Odet  de  Chatillon,  Bishop  of 
plores  the  number  of  monks  and  nuns  J eauvais'  and  brother  of  the  Admiral, 
who  left  their  convents,  apostatized,  I  Jeoame  a  declared  Calvinist,  married 
and  married.  It  directs  that  they  M^  de.  H^eville,  and  called  him- 
shall  be  tempted  back,  treated  kind-  !  Jel.f  Comtf  de  ^eauvais.  He  seems 
ly,  and  pardon  for  them  be  sought  |  ^ave  fftain.e  ?i1S  bepue?c^'  aildwas 
from  the  Holy  See.-Concil.  Rotomag.  !  still  called  by  the  Catholics  M.  le 
ann.  1581,  Cap.  de  Monasteriis  §  32.  Cardnial>  Car  "  nona  estoit  fort  a 
(Harduin.  X.  1253.) 


coeur,"  says  Brantome  (Discours  48) 
"de  luy  changer  le  nom  qui  luy 
avoit  este  si  bien  seant." 

3  Edit  de  1576,    Art.    9.— Edit   de 
Poitiers,  Art.  Secrets,  No.  8.     (Isam- 


Prelates  of  high  position  were  not 
wanting  to  the  list  of  married  men. 
Carracioli,  Bishop  of  Troyes,  and  Spi- 
fame,  Bishop  of  Nevers,  were  of  the 

number.     Jean  de  Monluc,  Bishop  of  I  bert,   Anciennes    Lois  Franchises,  T 
Valence   (brother  of    the   celebrated  I  XV.  pp.  283,  331.) 
Marshal  Blaise  de  Monluc  whose  cru-  j      4  fcJt4  ^    „  .  .    „ 

elties  to  the  Huguenots  were  so  noto- 1  39  (£*£££&££  ^  * 


542  THE   POST-TRIDENTINE   CHURCH. 

1628  a  knight  of  Malta,  in  1630  a  nun,  and  in  1640  a  priest  of 
Nevers,  who  had  embraced  Calvinism,  ventured  on  matrimony, 
but  were  separated  from  their  spouses  and  the  marriages  were 
pronounced  null.1 


Gregoire,  Hist,  du  Mariage  des  Pretres  en  France,  pp.  58-9. 


XXX. 


THE   CHURCH  OF  TODAY. 


If  the  council  of  Trent  had  thus  failed  utterly  in  its  efforts 
to  create  that  which  had  never  existed — purity  of  morals 
under  the  rule  of  celibacy — it  had  at  length  succeeded  in 
its  more  important  task  of  putting  an  end  to  the  aspirations 
of  the  clergy  for  marriage.  With  the  anathema  for  heresy 
confronting  them,  few  could  be  found  so  bold  as  openly  to 
dispute  the  propriety  of  a  law  which  had  been  incorporated 
into  the  articles  of  faith ;  and  the  ingenious  sophistries  and 
far-fetched  logic  of  Bellarmine  were  reverently  received  and 
accepted  as  incontrovertible.  Urbain  Grandier  might  endea- 
vor to  quiet  the  conscience  of  his  morganatic  spouse  by 
writing  a  treatise  to  prove  the  lawfulness  of  priestly  wedlock, 
but  he  took  care  to  keep  the  manuscript  carefully  locked  in 
his  desk.1     A  man  of  bold  and  independent  spirit,  fortified 


1  When  Grandier  was  arrested  and 
tried    for    sorcery,    his    papers    were 
seized,  and  among  them  was   found 
in  essay  against  sacerdotal  celibacy. 
Under  torture,  he  confessed  that  he 
had    written    it    for    the   purpose    of 
j  satisfying  the  conscience  of  a  woman  ! 
j  with  whom  he  had  maintained  mari- 
|  tal  relations  for  seven  years. — (Hist. 
i  des  Diables  de  Loudun,  pp.  85,  191.) 
i  The  manuscript  was  burnt,   with  its 
|  unlucky  autbor,  but  a  copy  was  pre-  j 
|  served,    which     has     recently    been 
printed  (Petite  Bibliotheque  des  Cu- 
rieux,  Paris,  I860).     In  it,   Grandier 
shows   himself  singularly  bold  for  a 
man  of  his  time   and    station.     The 
law  of  nature,  or  moral  law,  he  holds 
to  be  the  direct  exposition  of  the  Di- 
vine will.     By  it  revealed  law  must 
necessarily  be  interpreted,  and  to  its 


standard  ecclesiastical  law  must  be 
made  to  conform.  He  evidently  was 
made  to  be  burned  as  a  heretic,  if  he 
had  escaped  as  a  sorcerer.  The  pro- 
mise of  chastity  exacted  at  ordination 
he  regards  as  extorted,  and  therefore 
as  not  binding  on  those  unable  to 
keep  it ;  while  he  does  not  hesitate 
to  assume  that  the  rule  itself  was 
adopted  and  enforced  on  purely  tem- 
poral grounds  —  "  de  crainte  qu'en 
remuant  une  pierre  on  n'esbranlat  la 
puissance  papale  ;  car  hors  cette  con- 
sideration d'Estat,  l'Eglise  romaine 
pense  assez  que  le  celibat  n'est  pas 
d'institution  divine  ni  necessaire  au 
salut,  puisqu'elle  en  dispense  les  par- 
ticuliers,  ce  qu'elle  ne  pourroit  faire 
si  le  celibat  avoit  este  ordonne  d'en 
haut"  (pp.  34-5). 


544 


THE    CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY. 


by  unfathomable  learning,  like  Louis  Ellies  Du  Pin,  might 
secretly  favor  marriage,  and  perhaps  might  contract  matri- 
mony.1 Du  Pin's  great  antagonist,  Boss  net,  might  incur  a 
similar  imputation,  and  be  ready  to  partially  yield  the  point 
if  thereby  he  might  secure  the  reconciliation  of  the  hostile 
churches.2  All  this,  however,  could  have  no  influence  on  the 
doctrines  and  practice  of  Catholicism  at  large,  and  the  prin- 
ciple remained  unaltered  and  unalterable. 


Yet  it  was  impossible  that  the  critical  spirit  of  inquiry 
which  marked  the  eighteenth  century,  its  boldness  of  unbe- 
lief, and  its  utter  want  of  faith  in  God  and  man,  could' leave 
unassailed  this  monument  of  primeval  asceticism,  while  it 
was  so  busy  in  undermining  everything  to  which  the  rever- 
ence of  its  predecessors  had  clung.  Accordingly,  the  latter 
half  of  the  century  witnessed  an  active  controversy  on  the 
subject.  In  1758,  a  canon  of  Estampes,  named  Desforges, 
who  had  been  forced  to  take  orders  by  his  family,  published 
a  work  in  two  volumes  in  which  he  attempted  to  prove  that 
marriage  was  necessary  for  all  ranks  of  ecclesiastics.  The 
book  attracted  attention,  and  by  order  of  the  Parlement  it 
was  burnt,  September  30,  1758,  by  the  hangman,  and  the 
unlucky  author  was  thrown  into  the  Bastille.  These  pro- 
ceedings were  well  calculated  to  give  publicity  to  the  work; 
it  was  reprinted  at  Douay  in  1772,  and  a  German  translation 


1  Notwithstanding  his  Sorhonic  de- 
gree, Dupin  is  said  to  have  been  se- 
cretly married,  and  to  have  left  a 
widow,  who  even  ventured  to  claim 
the  inheritance  of  his  estate.  He 
was  engaged  in  a  correspondence  with 
William  Wake,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, with  a  view  to  arrange  a  basis 
of  reconciliation  of  the  Anglican 
Church  with  Rome,  and,  according  to 
Lafitau,  Bishop  of  Sisteron,  in  that 
correspondence  he  assented  to  the 
propriety  of  sacerdotal  marriage. 

2  I  cannot  pretend  to  decide  the 
controversy  as  to  the  alleged  marriage 
between  Bossuet  and  Mdlle.  Desvieux 
de  Mauleon,  nor  to  determine  whether 
it  is  true  that"  she  and  her  daughters 


claimed  his  fortune  after  his  death. 
Much  has  been  written  on  both  sides, 
and  I  have  not  the  materials  at  hand 
to  justify  a  positive  opinion.  I  be- 
lieve, however,  that  there  is  no  doubt 
of  his  engaging  with  Liebnitz  and  Mo- 
lanus  in  a  negotiation  as  to  the  terms 
on  which  the  Lutherans  could  re-enter 
the  Roman  communion,  and  that  he 
promised,  in  the  name  of  the  pope, 
that  Lutheran  ministers  admitted  to 
the  priesthood  or  episcopate  should 
retain  their  wives.  It  is  asserted 
that  the  proposed  arrangement  was 
nearly  agreed  to  on  both  sides,  when 
the  pretensions  of  the  House  of  Hano- 
ver to  the  English  crown  caused  Lieb- 
nitz to  withdraw  from  the  under- 
taking. 


CONTROVERSY  REOPENED.  545 

was  published  in  1782  at  Gottingen  and  Minister.  The 
Abbe  Villiers  undertook  to  answer  Desforges  in  a  weak  little 
volume,  the  "  Apologie  du  Celibat  Chretien,"  published  in 
1762,  which  consists  principally  of  long  extracts  from  the 
Fathers  in  praise  of  virginity.  Even  Italy  felt  the  move- 
ment, and  in  1770  there  appeared  a  work  urging  the  abolition 
of  celibacy,  under  the  title  of  "  Delia  necessita  e  utilita  del 
matrimonio  degli  ecclesiastici,"  from  which  prudential  reasons 
withheld  the  name  of  the  author  and  the  place  of  publication. 
Some  more  competent  champion  was  necessary  to  answer 
these  repeated  attacks,  and  the  learned  Abate  Zaccaria 
brought  his  fertile  pen  aud  his  inexhaustible  erudition  to  the 
rescue  in  his  "  Storia  Polemica  del  Celibato  Sacro/'  which 
saw  the  light, in  1774,  and  which  not  long  afterwards  was 
translated  into  German.  In  1781  appeared  a  new  aspirant 
for  matrimonial  liberty  in  the  Abbe  Gaudin,  who  issued  at 
Geneva  (Lyons)  his  work  entitled  "  Les  inconveniens  du  celibat 
des  pretres,"  a  treatise  of  considerable  learning  and  no  little 
bitterness  against  the  whole  structure  of  sacerdotalism  and 
Roman  supremacy. 

Soon  after  this,  the  hopes  of  the  anti-celibatarians  grew 
high.  The  Emperor  Joseph  II.,  amid  his  many  fruitless 
schemes  for  philosophical  reform,  inclined  seriously  to  the 
notion  of  permitting  marriage  to  the  priesthood  of  his  do- 
minions. In  an  edict  of  1783  he  asserted,  incidentally,  that 
the  matter  was  subject  to  his  control,  and  the  advocates  of 
clerical  marriage  confidently  expected  that  in  a  very  short 
period  they  would  see  the  ancient  restrictions  swept  away 
by  the  imperial  power.  A  mass  of  controversial  essays  and 
dissertations  made  their  appearance  throughout  Germany, 
and  the  well-known  Protestant  theologian  Henke  took  the 
opportunity  of  bringing  out,  in  1783,  a  new  edition  of  the 
learned  work  of  Calixtus,  "  De  Conjugio  Clericorum,"  as  the 
most  efficient  aid  to  the  good  cause.  It  is  a  striking  illustra- 
tion of  the  temper  of  the  times  to  observe  that  this  work,  so 
bitterly  opposed  to  the  orthodox  doctrines  and  practice,  is 
dedicated  by  Henke  to  Archdeacon  Anthony  Ganoczy,  canon 
of  the  cathedral  church  of  Gross-  Wardein,  and  apostolic  pro- 
thonotary.  The  hope  of  success  brought  out  other  writers, 
35 


546 


THE   CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY 


and  the  movement  made  sufficient  progress  to  cause  some 
hesitation  in  Eome  as  to  the  propriety  of  yielding  to  the 
pressure.1 

Zaccaria  again  entered  the  lists,  and  produced,  in  1785,  his 
"  Nuova  Giustiflcazione  del  Celibato  Sacro,"  in  answer  to  the 
Abbe  Gaudin  and  to  an  anonymous  German  writer  whose 
work  had  produced  considerable  sensation.  To  this  he  was 
principally  moved  by  a  report  that  he  had  himself  been  con- 
verted by  the  facts  and  arguments  advanced  by  the  German, 
an  imputation  which  he  indignantly  refuted  in  three  hundred 
quarto  pages. 

The  half-formed  resolutions  of  Joseph  II.  led  to  no  result, 
and  the  subject  slumbered  for  a  few  years  until  the  outbreak 
of  the  French  Eevolution.  At  an  early  period-  in  that  great 
movement,  the  adversaries  of  sacerdotal  asceticism  bestirred 
themselves  in  bringing  to  public  attention  the  evils  and 
cruelty  of  the  system.  Already,  in  1789,  a  mass  of  pamphlets 
appeared  urging  the  abrogation  of  celibacy.  In  1790  the 
work  of  the  Abbe  Gaudin  was  reprinted,  and  was  promptly 
answered  by  the  prolific  Maultrot.  Even  in  Germany  the 
same  spirit  again  awoke,  and  an  Hungarian  priest  named 
Katz  published  at  Vienna,  in  1791,  a  "Tractatus  de  conjugio 
et  coelibatu  clericorum,"  in  which  he  argued  strongly  for  a 
change.  In  England,  Catholic  priests  occasionally  infringed 
the  law  by  marriage,  and  one  of  their  number,  distinguished 
for  talents  and  learning,  Dr.  Geddes,  endeavored  to  justify 
them  in  his  "  Modest  Apology  for  the  Catholics  of  Great 
Britain."2 


The  times  were  not  propitious  for  such  reforms  elsewhere, 
but  the  seething  caldron  of  the  French  Eevolution  soon  de- 
stroyed the  immunities  and  distinctive  laws  of  the  church. 


1  Zaccaria,  in  the  introduction  to 
his  "  Nuova  Giustificazione"  (p.  ix.), 
denies  that  the  papal  court  enter- 
tained any  idea  of  making  the  con- 
cession ;  b.ut,  in  considering  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  power  or  duty  of  the 
pope  to  alterr  the  law  of  celibacy 
(Diss.  iv.  cap.  6),  his  remarks  show 
clearly  that  the  subject  was  discussed 


in  a  tone  to  afford  the  partisans  of 
marriage  reasonable  grounds  for  hope. 
Among  the  threatening  proceedings 
of  the  emperor  was  the  suppression  of 
no  less  than  184  monasteries.  (Lecky, 
Hist,  of  Rationalism,  chap,  vi.) 

2  Gregoire,   Hist,    du   Mariage    des 
Pretres  en  France,  pp.  41-2. 


THE    FRENCH    REVOLUTION.  547 

The  attack  commenced  on  that  which  had  been  the  strength, 
but  which  was  now  the  weakness,  of  the  ecclesiastical  estab- 
lishment. As  early  as  the  10th  of  August,  1789,  preliminary 
steps  were  taken  in  the  National  Assembly  to  appropriate  the 
property  of  the  church  to  meet  the  fearful  deficit  which  had 
been  the  efficient  cause  of  calling  together  the  high  council 
of  the  nation.  This  property  was  estimated  as  covering  one- 
fifth  of  the  surface  of  France,  yielding  with  the  tithes  an 
annual  revenue  of  three  hundred  millions  of  francs.  So  vast 
an  amount  of  wealth,  perverted  for  the  most  part  from  its 
legitimate  purposes,  offered  an  irresistible  temptation  to' 
desperate  financiers,  and  yet  it  was  a  prelate  who  made  the 
first  direct  attack  upon  it.  On  the  10th  of  October,  1789, 
Talleyrand,  then  Bishop  of  Autun,  introduced  a  motion  to 
the  effect  that  it  should  be  devoted  to  the  national  wants,  sub- 
ject to  the  proper  and  necessary  expenses  for  public  worship; 
and  on  the  2d  of  November  the  measure  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  568  to  346.  This  settled  the  principle,  though  the 
details  of  a  transaction  so  enormous  were  only  perfected  by 
successive  acts  during  the  two  following  years.  One  of  the 
earliest  results  was  the  secularization  of  those  ecclesiastics 
whose  labors  did  not  entitle  them  to  support,  a  preliminary 
necessary  to  the  intended  appropriation  of  their  princely 
revenues.  This  was  accomplished  by  an  act  of  February 
13th,  1790,  by  which  the  monastic  orders  were  suppressed, 
and  a  moderate  annuity  accorded  to  the  unfortunates  thus 
turned  adrift  upon  the  world. 

The  great  body  of  the  parochial  clergy,  patriotic  in  their 
aspirations,  and  suffering  from  the  abuses  of  power,  had  hailed 
the  advent  of  the  Eevolution  with  joy;  and  their  assistance 
had  been  invaluable  in  rendering  the  Tiers  feat  supreme  in 
the  National  Assembly.  These  measures,  however,  assailing 
their  dearest  interests  and  privileges,  aroused  them  to  a  sense 
of  the  true  tendency  of  the  movement  to  which  they  had 
contributed  so  powerfully.  A  breach  was  inevitable  between 
them  and  the  partisans  of  progress.  Every  forward  step 
embittered  the  quarrel.  It  was  impossible  for  the  one  party 
to  stay  its  course,  or  for  the  other  to  assent  to  acts  which 
daily  beeame  more  menacing  and  revolutionary.      Forced 


548 


THE   CHURCH   OF    TO-DAY 


therefore  into  the  position  of  reactionaries,  the  clergy  ere  long 
became  objects  of  suspicion  and  soon  after  of  persecution. 
The  progressives  devised  a  test- oath,  obligatory  on  all  eccle- 
siastics, which  should  divide  those  who  were  loyal  to  the 
Eevolution  from  the  contumacious,  and  lists  were  kept  of  both 
classes.1  Harmless  as  the  oath  was  in  appearance,  when  it 
was  tendered  in  December,  1790,  five-sixths  of  the  clergy 
throughout  the  kingdom  refused  it.  Those  who  yielded  to 
the  pressure  were  termed  assermentes,  the  recusants  insermen- 
tes  or  refractaires,  and  the  latter  of  course  at  once  became  the 
determined  opponents  of  the  new  regime,  the  more  dangerous 
because  they  were  the  only  influential  partisans  of  reaction 
belonging  to  the  people.  To  their  efforts  were  attributed  the 
insurrections  which  in  La  Vendee  and  elsewhere  threatened 
the  most  fearful  dangers.  They  were  accordingly  exposed  to 
severe  legislation.  A  decree  of  November  29, 1791,  deprived 
them  of  their  stipends  and  suspended  their  functions ;  another 
of  May  27, 1792,  authorized  the  local  authorities  to  exile  them 
on  the  simple  denunciation  of  twenty  citizens.  Under  the 
Terror  their  persons  were  exposed  to  flagrant  cruelties,  and 
a  pretre  refractaire  was  generally  regarded,  ipso  facto,  as  an 
enemy  to  the  Republic. 

Under  these  circumstances,  sacerdotal  marriage  came  to  be 
looked  upon  as  a  powerful  lever  to  disarm  or  overthrow  the 
hostility  of  the  church,  and  also  as  a  test  of  loyalty  or  dis- 
loyalty. Yet  the  steps  by  which  this  conclusion  was  reached 
were  very  gradual.  In  the  early  stages  of  the  Revolution, 
while  it  was  still  fondly  deemed  that  the  existing  institutions  of 
France  could  be  purified  and  preserved,  the  National  Assem- 
bly was  assailed  with  petitions  asking  that  the  privilege  of 
marriage  should  be  extended  to  the  clergy.  These  met  with 
no  response,  even  after  the  suppression  of  the  monastic  orders. 
As  late  as  September,  1790,  when  Professor  Cournand,  of  the 


1  "  D'etre  fidele  a  la  nation,  a  la  loi, 
au  roi,  et  de  veiller  exactement  sur  le 
troupea'u  confie  a  leurs  soins."  It  was 
not  only  the  objections  of  the  king  and 
of  the  pope  that  rendered  this  oath 
unpalatable,  but  also  the  fact  that  it 
gave  adhesion  to  the  law  for  the  secu- 


larization of  ecclesiastical  property 
and  of  the  monastic  orders.  It  was 
ordered  in  the  Constitution  civile  du 
Clerge,  Tit.  n.  Art.  21,  38,  adopted 
July  3  2  and  promulgated  Aug.  24, 
1790. 


ADOPTION    OF    SACERDOTAL   MARRIAGE.        549 

College  de  France,  made  a  motion  in  favor  of  sacerdotal  mar- 
riage in  the  assembly  of  the  district  of  St.  Etienne  du  Mont 
in  Paris,  the  question,  after  considerable  debate,  was  laid 
aside  as  beyond  the  competence  of  that  body.  It  was  not 
until  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  1791  that  celibacy 
was  deprived  of  its  legal  guarantees,  and  then  it  was  by  indi- 
rection only.  In  the  preamble  to  that  instrument  a  section 
declares  that  the  law  does  not  recognize  religious  vows  or  any 
engagements  contrary  to  the  rights  of  nature  or  to  the  consti- 
tution,1 and  this  was  elucidated  by  a  decree  of  September  20, 
1791,  which,  in  enumerating  the  obstacles  to  marriage,  does 
not  allude  to  monastic  vows  or  holy  orders. 

Professor  Cournand  was  probably  the  first  man  of  position 
and  character  to  take  advantage  of  the  privilege  thus  tacitly 
permitted,  and  his  example  was  followed  by  many  ecclesias- 
tics, who  had  won  an  honorable  place  in  the  church,  in  litera- 
ture, and  in  science.  Among  them  may  be  mentioned  the 
Abbe  Graudin  of  the  Oratoire,  the  author  of  a  work  already 
alluded  to  on  the  evils  of  celibacy,  who  in  1792  represented 
La  Vendee  in  the  Legislative  Assembly,  and  who  in  1805  did 
not  hesitate  to  publish  a  little  volume  entitled  "  Avis  a  mon 
fils,  age  de  sept  ans" — although,  in  the  preface  to  his  work  in 
1781,  he  had  described  himself  as  long  past  the  age  of  the  pas- 
sions. Even  bishops  yielded  to  the  temptation.  Lomenie, 
coadjutor  of  his  uncle  the  Archbishop  of  Sens,  Torne  Bishop 
of  Bourges,  Massieu  of  Beauvais,  and  Lindet  of  Evreuxwere 
publicly  married.  Many  nuptials  of  this  kind  were  cele- 
brated with  an  air  of  defiance.  Pastors  announced  their  ap- 
proaching weddings  to  their  flocks  in  florid  rhetoric,  as 
though  assured  of  finding  sympathy  for  the  assertion  of  the 
triumph  of  nature  over  the  tyranny  of  man.  Others  pre- 
sented themselves  with  their  brides  at  the  bar  of  the  National 
Convention,  as  though  to  demonstrate  that  they  were  good 
citizens,  who  had  thrown  off  all  reverence  for  the  obsolete 
traditions  of  the  past. 

A  nation  maddened  and  torn  by  the  extremes  of  hope,  of 


1  La  loi  ne  reconnait  ni  voeux  reli-  I  serait  contraire  aux  droits  naturels  oil 
gieux,  ni  aucun  autre  engagement  qui    a  la  constitution. 


550  THE   CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY. 

rage,  and  of  terror,  which  met  the  triumphal  march  of  three 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  hostile  bayonets  with  the  heads 
of  its  king  and  queen,  which  blazoned  forth  to  Europe  its 
irrevocable  breach  with  the  past  by  instituting  festivals  in 
honor  of  a  new  Supreme  Being  and  parading  a  courtesan 
through  the  streets  of  Paris  as  the  Goddess  of  Eeason,  was 
not  likely  to  employ  much  tenderness  in  coercing  its  internal 
enemies ;  and  chief  among  these  it  finally  numbered  the  min- 
isters of  religion.  To  them  it  soon  applied  the  marriage  test. 
To  marry  was  to  acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  the  civil 
authority,  and  to  sunder  allegiance  to  foreign  domination; 
celibacy  was  at  the  least  a  tacit  adherence  to  the  enemy,  and 
a  mute  protest  against  the  new  regime.  Matrimony,  there- 
fore, rose  into  importance  as  at  once  a  test  and  a  pledge,  and 
every  effort  was  made  to  encourage  it.  Among  the  records 
of  the  revolutionary  tribunal  is  the  trial  of  Mahue,  Cure  of  S. 
Sulpice,  Aug.  13, 1793,  accused  of  having  written  a  pamphlet 
against  priestly  marriage,  and  he  was  only  acquitted  on  the 
ground  that  his  crime  had  been  committed  prior  to  the  adop- 
tion of  the  law  of  July  19,  1793. l  A  decree  of  November 
19,  1793,  relieved  from  exile  or  imprisonment  all  priests  who 
could  show  that  their  banns  had  been  published,  and  when, 
soon  afterwards,  at  the  height  of  the  popular  frenzy,  the  Con- 
vention sent  its  deputies  throughout  France  with  instructions 
to  crush  out  every  vestige  of  the  dreaded  reaction,  those 
emissaries  made  celibacy  the  object  of  their  especial  attacks. 
Thus,  in  the  Department  of  the  Meuse,  deputy  De  la  Croix 
announced  that  all  priests  who  were  not  married  should  be 
placed  under  surveillance ;  while  in  Savoy  the  harsh  mea- 
sures taken  against  the  clergy  were  modified  in  favor  of  those 
who  married  by  permitting  them  to  remain  under  surveil- 
lance. One  zealous  deputy  ordered  a  pastor  to  be  imprisoned 
until  he  could  find  a  wife,  and  another  released  a  canon  from 
jail  on  his  pledging  himself  to  marry.  Many  of  those  thus 
forced  into  matrimony  were  decrepit  with  years,  and  chose 
brides  whose  age  secured  them  from  all  suspicions  of  yield- 
ing to  the  temptations  of  the  flesh.     Such  was  the  venerable 


1  Desmaze,  Penalites  Anciennes,  p.  222.     Paris,  1866. 


PERSECUTION    OF    TIIE    CELIBATE    CLERGY.       551 

Martin  of  Marseilles,  who,  after  seeing  his  bishop  and  two 
priests,  his  intimate  friends,  led  to  the  scaffold,  took,  at  the  age 
of  76,  a  wife  nearly  60  years  old.  As  an  unfortunate  eccle- 
siastic, who  had  thus  succeeded  in  weathering  the  storm,  fairly 
expressed  it,  in  defending  himself  against  the  reproaches  of 
a  returned  emigre*  bishop,  he  took  a  wife  to  serve  as  a  light- 
ning rod.  These  unwilling  bridegrooms  not  infrequently 
deposited  with  a  notary  or  a  trusty  friend  a  protest  against 
the  violence  to  which  they  had  yielded,  and  a  declaration  that 
their  relations  with  their  wives  should  be  merely  those  of 
brother  and  sister. 

Yet  in  this  curious  persecution  the  officials  only  obeyed 
the  voice  of  the  excited  people.  The  press,  the  stage,  all  the 
organs  of  public  opinion,  were  unanimous  in  warring  with 
celibacy,  ridiculing  it  as  a  fanatical  remnant  of  superstition, 
and  denouncing  it  as  a  crime  against  the  state.  The  popular 
societies  were  especially  vehement  in  promulgating  these 
ideas.  The  Congrfa  fraternel  of  Ausch,  in  September,  1793, 
ordered  the  local  clubs  to  enlighten  the  benighted  minds  of 
the  populace  on  the  subject,  and  to  exclude  from  membership 
all  priests  who  should  not  marry  within  six  months.  A 
petition  to  the  National  Assembly  from  the  republicans  of 
Auxerre  demanded  that  all  ecclesiastics  who  persisted  in  re- 
maining single  should  be  banished;  while  a  more  truculent 
address  from  Condom  urged  imperiously  that  celibacy  should 
be  declared  a  capital  crime,  and  that  the  death-penalty  should 
be  enforced  with  relentless  severity.  In  times  so  terrible, 
when  suspicion  was  conviction  and  conviction  death,  and  when 
such  were  the  views  of  those  who  swayed  public  affairs,  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at  if  many  pious  churchmen,  unambitious 
of  the  crown  of  martyrdom,  thought  matrimony  preferable  to 
the  guillotine  or  the  noyade. 

Indeed,  the  only  source  of  surprise  is  that  so  few  were  found 
to  betray  their  convictions.  The  ecclesiastics  of  France,  pre- 
vious to  the  Revolution,  were  reckoned  as  numbering  about 
80,000  souls,  yet  it  is  estimated  that  only  about  2000  mar- 
riages of  men  in  orders  took  place,  after  the  reign  of  terror 
had  rendered  it  a  measure  of  safety.  In  addition  to  this, 
about  500  nuns  were  also  married ;  and  though  this  proportion 


552  THE    CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY. 

is  larger,  it  is  still  singularly  small  when  we  consider  that 
these  poor  creatures,  utterly  unfitted  by  habit  or  education 
to  take  care  of  themselves,  were  suddenly  ejected  from  their 
peaceful  retreats,  and  cast  upon  a  world  which  was  raging  in 
convulsions  so  terrible. 

This  is  doubtless  attributable  to  the  steadfast  resistance 
which  the  better  part  of  .the  clergy  made  to  the  innovation, 
in  spite  of  the  danger  of  withstanding  the  popular  frenzy,  and 
in  disregard  of  the  laws  which  denounced  such  opposition. 
Even  the  assermentes,  who  had  pledged  themselves  to  the 
Eevolution  by  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance,  were  mostly 
unfavorable  to  the  abrogation  of  celibacy,  and  the  position  thus 
maintained  by  the  clergy  gave  tone  to  such  of  the  people  as  re- 
tained enough  of  devout  feeling  to  still  frequent  the  churches 
and  partake  of  the  mysteries  of  religion.  The  existence  of 
an  active  and  determined  opposition  is  revealed  by  an  act  of 
August  16th,  1792,  guaranteeing  the  salaries  of  all  married 
priests,  thus  showing  that  in  some  places,  at  least,  their  sti- 
pends had  been  withheld.  Many  pastors,  indeed,  were  driven 
from  their  parishes  by  their  congregations,  in  consequence  of 
marriage,  to  put  an  end  to  which  a  decree  of  September  17th, 
1793,  ordered  the  communes  to  continue  payment  of  salaries 
in  all  such  cases  of  ejection* 

There  were  not  wanting  courageous  ecclesiastics  who  op- 
posed the  innovation  by  every  means  in  their  power.  Al- 
though Gobel,  Bishop  of  Paris,  a  creature  of  the  Eevolution, 
favored  the  marriages  of  his  clergy,  a  portion  of  his  curates 
openly  and  vigorously  denounced  them,  and  Gratien,  Arch- 
bishop of  Rouen,  addressed  to  him  a  severe  reproach  for  his 
criminal  weakness.  The  same  Gratien  excommunicated  one 
of  his  priests  for  marrying,  and  published,  July  24th,  1792, 
an  instruction  directed  especially  against  such  unions.  For 
this  he  was  thrown  into  prison,  where  he  was  long  confined. 
Fauchet,  of  Bayeux,  for  the  same  offence,  was  reported  to  the 
Convention,  but  was  fortunate  enough  to  elude  the  conse- 
quences. Philibert,  of  Sedan,  issued,  January  20th,  1793,  a 
pastoral  in  which  he  more  cautiously  argued  against  the  prac- 
tice, and,  after  a  long  persecution,  he  was  lucky  to  escape 
with  a  decree  of  costs  against  him.     Pastorals  to  the  same 


REORGANIZATION    OF    THE    CHURCH.  553 

effect  were  also  promulgated  by  Clement  of  Versailles,  Herau- 
din  of  Chateauroux,  Sanadon  of  Oleron,  Suzor  of  Tours,  and 
others. 

The  Convention  was  not  disposed  to  tolerate  proceedings 
such  as  these.  To  put  a  stop  to  them,  it  adopted,  July  19th, 
1793,  a  law  punishing  with  deprivation  and  exile  all  bishops 
who  interfered  in  any  way  with  the  marriage  of  their  clergy. 
For  awhile  this  appears  to  have  put  a  stop  to  open  opposition, 
but  when  the  reign  of  terror  was  past,  and  the  Catholics 
saw  a  prospect  of  reorganizing  the  distracted  church,  one  of 
their  earliest  efforts  was  directed  to  the  restoration  of  celi- 
bacy. On  the  15th  of  March,  1795,  some  assermentes  bishops, 
members  of  the  Convention,  issued  from  Paris  an  encyclical 
letter  to  the  faithful,  in  which  they  denounced  sacerdotal  mar- 
riage in  the  strongest  terms.  Those  who  entered  into  such 
unions  were  declared  unworthy  of  confidence ;  the  fearful 
constraint  under  which  they  had  sought  refuge  in  matrimony 
was  pronounced  to  be  no  justification,  and  even  renunciation 
of  their  wives  was  not  admitted  as  entitling  them  to  absolu- 
tion for  the  one  unpardonable  sin.1  In  a  second  letter,  issued 
December  loth  of  the  same  year,  this  denunciation  was  re- 
peated in  even  stronger  terms. 

In  these  manifestoes  the  bishops  did  not  speak  by  authority. 
They  could  not  threaten  or  command,  for  they  were  acting 
beyond  or  in  opposition  to  the  law.  With  the  progress  of 
reaction  they  became  bolder.  In  1797  the  church  ventured 
to  hold  a  national  council,  in  which  it  forbade  the  nuptial 
benediction  to  those  who  were  in  orders  or  were  bound  by  mo- 
nastic vows,  thus  reducing  their  marriages  to  the  mere  civil 
contract,  and  depriving  them  of  all  the  sanction  of  religion. 
The  local  synods  which,  encouraged  by  the  fall  of  the  Direc- 
tory, were  held  in  1800,  adopted  these  principles  as  a  matter 
of  course,  and  took  measures  to  enforce  them.  That  of 
Bourges  even  prohibited  the  churching  of  women  who  were 
wives  of  ecclesiastics. 


1  Conformement  a  l'esprit  de  l'eglise  sont  maries  sous  pretexte  d'eviter  les 
et  aux  regies  canoniques,  nous  regar-  persecutions,  ou  par  quelque  motif  que 
dons  comme  indignes  de  leur  etat  et  ',  ce  soit,  quand  nieme  ils  renonceraient 
de  la  confiance  des  fideles,  en  inatiere  au  mariage.  —  Lett.  Encyc.  15  Mars, 
de  religion,  les  ecclesiastiques  qui  se    1795,  art.  ix.  (Gregoire,  p.  109). 


554  THE   CHURCH   OF   TO-DAY. 

This  condemnation  of  the  married  clergy  carried  despair 
and  desolation  into  the  households  of  those  who  had  of- 
fended, and  upon  whom  the  door  of  reconciliation  was  so 
sternly  closed.  Grregoire  of  Blois,  a  leading  actor  in  all  these 
scenes,  records  the  innumerable  appeals  received  from  the 
unfortunates,  who,  torn  by  remorse  and  thus  repudiated  by 
the  church,  begged  in  vain  for  the  mercy  which  was  incom- 
patible with  the  respect  due  to  the  ancient  and  inviolable 
canons. 

All  this,  however,  was  merely  local  action.  The  Gallican 
church  had  not  yet;  been  reunited  to  Eome.  In  reconstructing 
a  system  of  social  order,  Napoleon  speedily  recognized  the 
necessity  of  religion  in  the  state,  and,  despite  the  opposition 
of  those  who  still  believed  in  the  Eepublic,  the  Concordat  of 
1801  restored  France  to  its  place  in  the 'hierarchy  of  Latin 
Christianity.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Concordat  interfering 
with  the  right  of  the  priest,  as  a  citizen,  to  contract  marriage ; 
but  as,  in  all  affairs  purely  ecclesiastical,  the  internal  regula- 
tion and  discipline  of  the  church  were  necessarily  left  to  itself, 
the  rights  of  the  priest,  as  a  priest,  became  of  course  subject 
to  the  received  rules  of  the  church,  which  could  thus  refuse 
the  nuptial  benediction,  and  suspend  the  functions  of  any  one 
contravening  its  canons.  In  consequence  of  the  power  thus 
restored,  when  the  question  soon  after  arose  as  to  the  legality 
of  sacerdotal  marriages  contracted  during  the  troubles,  the 
Cardinal-legate  Caprara  issued  rescripts  to  those  whose  unions 
were  anterior'  to  the  Concordat,  depriving  them  of  their 
priestly  character,  reducing  them  to  the  rank  of  laymen,  and 
empowering  the  proper  officials  to  absolve  them  and  remarry 
them  to  the  wives  whom  they  had  so  irregularly  wedded. 
This  created  a  strong  feeling  of  indignation  among  the  pre- 
lates who  had  carried  the  tabernacle  through  thefrwilderness, 
and  who,  while  opposing  such  marriages  most  strenuously, 
regarded  this  intervention  of  papal  authority  as  a  direct 
assault  upon  the  liberties  of  the  Gallican  church.  Their  time 
was  past,  however,  and  their  denunciations  of  this  duplica- 
tion of  the  sacrament  were  of  no  avail.  Yet  the  legality  of 
such  marriages,  and  the  unimpaired  right  of  priests  to  con- 
tract them,  were  asserted  and  proved  by  Portalis,  in  Ms  mas- 


SACERD.OTAL   MARRIAGE    STILL   PRACTISED.      555 


terly  speech  of  April  15th,  1802,  before  the  Corps  Legislatif, 
advocating  the  adoption  of  the  Concordat  as  a  law,  although 
he  admitted  that  the  duties  of  the  priesthood  and  the  feeling 
of  the  people  rendered  sacerdotal  celibacy  desirable.1 

Notwithstanding  the  authority  thus  restored  to  the  church, 
and  the  certainty  of  ecclesiastical  penalties  following  such 
infraction  of  the  Tridentine  articles  of  faith,  the  practice 
which  had  been  introduced  could  not  be  immediately  eradi- 
cated. Priests  were  constantly  contracting  marriage,  and  the 
question  gave  considerable  trouble  to  the  government,  which 
hesitated  for  some  time  as  to  the  policy  to  be  pursued.  Por- 
talis,  in  1802,  as  we  have  seen,  declared  the  full  legality  of 
such  marriages,  and  the  unimpaired  right  of  ecclesiastics  to 
contract  them ;  and  the  provisions  of  the.  code  respecting  mar- 
riage, adopted  in  1803,  make  no  allusions  to  vows  or  religious 
engagements  as  causing  incapacity.2  Yet  in  1805,  when  Da- 
viaux,  Archbishop  of  Bordeaux,  opposed  the  application  of  a 
priest  named  Boisset  to  the  civil  authorities  for  a  marriage 
contract,  Portalis,  then  minister  of  religious  affairs,  on  being 


1  This  speech  of  Portalis  ptre  is  an 
admirable  commentary  on  the  Con- 
cordat, developing  its  causes  and  con- 
sequences with  a  rigidity  of  logic  and 
an  enlightened  spirit  of  faith  which 
are  equally  creditable  to  the  head 
and  heart  of  the  distinguished  orator. 
From  the  portion  devoted  to  the  sub- 
ject of  marriage,  I  quote  the  following, 
as  embodying  a  clear  exposition  of 
the  present  state  of  French  law  on  the 
subject. 

u  Quelques  personnes  se  plaindront 
peut-etre  de  ce  que  l'on  n'a  pas  con- 
serve le  mariage  des  pretres.  ...  En 
effet,  d'une  part  nous  n'admettons  plus 
que  les  ministres  dont  l'existence  est 
necessaire  a  l'exercice  du  culte,  ce  qui 
diminue  considerablement  le  nombre 
des  personnes  qui  se  vouaient  an- 
cienneinent  au  celibat.  D'autre  part, 
pour  les  ministres  memes  que  nous  con- 
servons,  et  a  qui  le  celibat  est  ordonne 
par  les  reglements  ecclesiastiques,  la 
defense  qui  leur  est  faite  du  mariage 
par  ces  reglements  n'est  point  con- 
sacree    comme    empechement    dirimant 


dans  l'ordre  civil :  ainsi  leur  mariage, 
s'ils  en  contractaient  un,  ne  serait 
point  nul  aux  yeux  des  lois  politiques 
et  civiles,  et  les  enfans  qui  en  nai- 
traient  seraient'  legitimes  ;  mais  dans 
le  for  interieur  et  dans  l'ordre  reli- 
gieux,  ils  s'exposeraient  aux  peines 
spirituelles  prononcees  par  les  lois 
canoniques  :  ils  continueraient  a  jouir 
de  leurs  droits  de  famille  et  de  cite, 
mais  ils  seraient  tenus  de  s'abstenir 
de  l'exercice  du  sacerdoce.  Conse- 
quemment,  sans  affaiblir  le  nerf  de  la 
discipline  de  l'Eglise,  on  conserve  aux 
individus  toute  la  liberte  et  tons  les 
avantages  garantis  par  les  lois  de 
l'etat ;  mais  il  eut  ete  injuste  d'aller 
plus  loin,  et  d'exiger  pour  les  ecclesi- 
astiques de  France,  comme  tels,  une 
exception  qui  les  eut  deconsideres  au- 
pres  de  tous  les  peuples  Catholiques, 
et  aupres  des  Francais  memes,  aux- 
quels  ils  administreraient  les  secours 
de  la  religion."  (Dupin,  Manuel  du 
Droit  Public  Eccles.  Francais,  4eme 
ed.  pp.  196-8.) 

2  Code  Civil,  Liv.  i.  Tit.  v. 


556  THE    CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY. 

appealed  to,  replied  that  tlie  government  would  not  allow  its 
officers  to  register  such  contracts.  The  local  administrations 
sometimes  assented  to  such  applications  and  sometimes  refer- 
red them  to  the  central  authority,  until  at  length,  in  1807,  a 
definite  conclusion  was  promulgated.  This  was  to  the  effect 
that  although  the  civil  law  was  silent  as  regards  such  mar- 
riages, yet  they  were  condemned  by  public  opinion.  The 
government  considered  them  fraught  with  danger  to  the  peace 
of  families,  as  the  powerful  influence  of  the  pastor  could  be 
perverted  to  evil  purposes,  and,  if  seduction  could  be  fol- 
lowed by  marriage,  that  influence  would  be  liable  to  great 
abuse.  The  emperor  therefore  declared  that  he  could  not 
tolerate  marriage  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  exercised 
priestly  functions  since  the  date  of  the  Concordat.  As  for 
those  who  had  abandoned  the  ministry  previous  to  that  period 
and  had  not  since  resumed  it,  he  left  them  to  their  own  con- 
sciences. Thus,  in  practice,  although  marriage  was  regarded 
as  purely  a  civil  institution,  a  limitation  was  introduced 
which  was  not  authorized  by  the  code,  which  rested  solely 
upon  the  authority  of  the  emperor,  and  which,  far  from  indi- 
cating respect  to  the  church,  was  a  flagrant  insult. 

Under  the  Kestoration,  a  case  occurred  which  decided  these 
points.  A  priest  named  Martin,  an  old  refractaire  of  1792, 
committed  the  imprudence  of  marrying  in  1815.  Not  long 
after  he  died  without  issue.  His  relatives  contested  the  suc- 
cession with  the  widow,  and  in  1817  the  inferior  court  decided 
in  her  favor.  The  next  year  the  court  of  appeals  reversed 
the  judgment  on  the  ground  that  sacerdotal  marriage  had  only 
been  sanctioned  indirectly  by  the  legislation  of  the  Eevolu- 
tion,  and  that  the  Charter  of  1814  (Art.  6)  had  restored  Ca- 
tholicism as  the  religion  of  the  state.  In  1821,  however,  the 
final  decision  of  the  court  of  cassation  settled  the  question  in 
favor  of  the  widow,  thus  legalizing  such  unions,  for  the  in- 
controvertible reason  that  the  code  did  not  recognize  vows  or 
holy  orders  as  causes  incapacitating  for  marriage.1 


1  For  many  of  the  above  details  I 
am  indebted  to  the  curious  but  ill- 
digested  little  work — "  Histoire  du 
Manage  des  Pretres  en  France,"  pub- 


lished by  Gregoire  in  1826.  Gregoire, 
though  a  priest  of  the  ancien  regime, 
was  a  sincere  and  consistent  republi- 
can.    A  member  of  the  States  Gene- 


SACERDOTAL    MARRIAGE    LEGAL    IN    FRANCE.       557 

By  the  law  of  France,  therefore,  there  is  no  obstacle  to  the 
marriage  of  ecclesiastics,  yet  the  privilege  is  not  one  which 
many  would  care  to  enjoy,  in  opposition  to  the  opinions  of 
society  and  the  canons  of  the  church.  Though  the  wife  be 
legally  a  wife,  and  the  children  legitimate,  yet  the  union 
would  not  receive  the  nuptial  benediction,  the  husband  would 
be  ejected  from  the  ministry  and  would  doubtless  incur  ex- 
communication— penalties  from  which  there  would  be  little 
chance  of  escaping  by  an  appel  comme  (Tabus.  Unless,  there- 
fore, prepared  to  abandon  the  Catholic  faith  and  to  embrace 
Protestantism,  it  is  not  *easy  to  conceive  of  a  priest  willing  to 
incur  the  results  of  so  fatal  a  step,  or  of  a  decent  woman  con- 
senting to  share  so  hopeless  a  destiny. 

I  believe,  indeed,  that  a  case  decided  in  September,  1862,  is 
the  only  one  which  has  occurred  since  that  of  Martin  in  1815, 
and  the  contest  over  it  shows  how  completely  the  rights  then 
affirmed  had  fallen  into  desuetude.  In  1861,  M.  de  Brou- 
Lauriere,  a  priest  already  debarred  from  his*  sacred  functions, 
engaged  himself  in  marriage  with  Mdlle.  Elizabeth  Fressan- 
ges,  of  Deuville  near  Perigueux.  On  calling  upon  the  mayor 
of  the  village  to  perform  the  ceremony  and  register  the  con- 


ral,  of  the  Convention,  and  of  the  Coun-  by  the  voice  of  the  people,  but  not 

cil  of  Five  Hundred,  elected  Bishop  of ;  from  the  people  nor  from  you  do  I  de- 

Blois   by  the  voice  of  a  people  who  rive   my  mission,  and'  I  will  not  be 

knew  and  respected  him,  he  preserved  forced   to   an   abjuration.''     To    him 

his  ardent  faith  through  all  the  ex-  perhaps  more  than  to  any  one  else  is 

cesses  of  the  Revolution,  and  his  de-  attributable   the  skilful  management 

mocratic  ideas  in  spite  of  the  injuries  which  carried  the  church  through  the 

inflicted  on  his  class  in  the  name  of  storms  and  persecutions  of  the  Revo- 

the  people.     The  sincerity  and  bold-  lution,    but    the    same     inflexibility 

ness    of  his    character   may  be    esti-  which    maintained    his    Catholicism 

mated  by  a  single  example.     When,  through  the  ordeal  of  1793  and  1794 

on  the  7th  of  November,  1793,  Gobel,  caused  him  to  stand  by  his   republic 

Bishop  of   Paris,  appeared  before  the  canism  long  after  it  had   gone  out  of 

Convention  with  twelve  of  his  vicars  fashion.     He  was  not  to  be  bought  or 

and   publicly   renounced    his    sacred  bullied  ;  the  Legitimist  was  less  tole- 

functions  on  the  ground  that  hereafter  rant  than  the  Terrorist,  and  under  the 

there  should  be  no  other  worship  than  Restoration  he  was  reduced  almost  to 

that  of  liberty  and  equality,  almost  absolute    indigence.     Together    with 

all  the  ecclesiastics  in  the  Convention  the  other  constitutional   bishops,  he 

followed  his  example.     To  hold  back  had  been  compelled  to  resign  his  bish- 

at  such  a  moment  was  dangerous  in  opric  by  order  of  the  pope  after  the 

the   extreme,   yet   Gregoire   had   the  Concordat  of   1801,  and  he  was  too 

hardihood  to  utter  a  defiant  protest,  dangerous  a  man  to  be  rewarded  for 

"I  am  a  Catholic  by  conviction  and  his  invaluable  services  to  religion.  He 

by  feeling,  a  priest  by  choice,  a  bishop  died  in  1831. 


658 


THE   CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY 


tract,  that  functionary  refused  to  act.  He  was  supported  by 
the  public  authorities,  and  the  expectant  bridegroom  was 
obliged  to  appeal  to  the  tribunals  to  obtain  his  rights.  The 
question  was  warmly  contested  and  thoroughly  argued,  and 
it  was  not  until  a  year  had  elapsed  that  the  court  of  Peri- 
gueux  rendered  a  decision  ordering  the  mayor  to  perform  his 
functions  and  to  marry  the  patient  couple.  Even  yet,  it  is 
said  that  an  appeal  has  been  entered,  and  that  the  verdict  of 
a  superior  court  will  be  required  to  determine  the  question 
finally.  What  renders  more  remarkable  the  doubt  thus 
assumed  to  exist  is  that  the  article  of  the  Charter  of  1814 
declaring  Catholicism  to  be  the  religion  of  the  state  was  omit- 
ted in  that  of  1830,  and  a  simple  declaration  substituted  that 
it  was  the  faith  of  a  majority  of  Frenchmen.1 


I  do  not  pretend  to  judge  or  to  accuse  existing  institutions. 
When  treating  of  the  church  in  bygone  ages,  incontestable 
documents  present  facts  which  form  sure  bases  for  opinions 
and  conclusions,  and  such  I  have  endeavored  to  present,  fairly 
and  impartially.  .At  the  present  time,  however,  the  fury  of 
partisanship  and  the  acerbity  of  religious  disputation  give  their 
coloring  to  all  published  statements,  while  the  opportunity  has 
not  yet  arrived  for  access  to  the  authoritative  data  by  which 
posterity  is.to  judge  of  the  society  of  to-day. 

If,  on  the  one  hand,  the  noble  example  of  the  self-devoted 
women  who,  from  Burmah  to  the  Sandwich  Islands,  have 
shared  their  husbands'  dangers  and  privations,  has  shown  that 
marriage  is  not  incompatible  with  the  most  thorough  self- 
abnegation  and  the  most  zealous  labors  for  the  propagation  of 
the  faith — still,  on  the  other  hand,  the  evils  of  celibacy,  under 
the  wholesome  restraint  of  modern  institutions,  manifest  them- 
selves to  a  degree  thai:  is  infinitesimal  in  comparison  with  the 
past.  In  a  country  like  our  own,  where  the  laborers  are  few 
and  indifferently  paid,  while  their  tasks  are  heavy  and  un- 
ceasing, the  priesthood  has  few  temptations  for  those  whose 


1  Since  the  above  was  written  I 
have  met  with  an  allusion  to  the  case 
of  an  Abbe  Chataigneu,  occurring  in 
1864,  in  which  the  court  of  Angou- 
16me  decided  that  under  the  French 


law  a  priest  was  not  competent  to  con- 
tract a  civil  marriage,  but  I  have  not 
been  able  to  obtain  the  particulars  of 
it.  (Talmadge's  Letters  from  Flo- 
rence, p.  166.) 


EXISTING    INSTITUTIONS.  559 

faith  and  resolution  do  not  fit  them  to  endure  all  its  priva- 
tions and  fulfil  all  its  duties.  If,  too,  a  member  should  occa- 
sionally be  admitted  who  is  destitute  of  the  higher  qualities 
that  should  be  his  safeguard,  and  whose  passions  even  the 
ceaseless  labors  of  his  vocation  cannot  hold  in  check,  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  his  apostasy,  while,  if  he  remains  in  the 
church,  there  are  the  wholesome  restraints  imposed  by  a  jeal- 
ously hostile  public  opinion,  and  there  is  liability  not  only  to 
the  municipal  law,  but  to  the  rigor  of  the  canons  mercilessly 
enforced  by  prelates  who  feel  that  their  church  is  on  probation. 
Even  in  France,  where  Catholicism  is  dominant,  the  same 
causes  exist,  some  of  them,  indeed,  in  a  still  greater  degree. 
There  the  priest  receives  his  stipend  not  from  the  funds  of 
the  church  or  from  the  oblations  of  the  faithful,  but  from  the 
state,  and  that  stipend  is  too  moderate  to  nourish  luxury  or 
to  attract  the  votaries  of  idleness  and  ease.  Not  only  does 
the  state  thus  limit  the  numbers  of  its  sacred  servants  to  the 
minimum  requisite  to  perform  the  functions  of  religion,  but 
it  holds  the  whole  body  in  a  state  of  dependence  insuring 
good  behavior.  Thus  subjected  to  public  opinion,  and  en- 
joying no  exemption,  as  of  old,  from  the  secular  criminal 
tribunals,  defiant  corruptions  cannot  well  be  glossed  over  by 
officials  who  might  be  disposed  to  conceal  the  vices  which 
would  degrade  and  dishonor  the  cloth.  Occasionally,  there- 
fore, when  some  gross  scandal  sees  the  light,  it  is  visited 
with  a  severity  which  shows  that,  society  expects  the  min- 
isters of  religion  to  teach  by  example  as  well  as  by  precept  ;x 
nor  can  we  safely  assume  that  such  occasional  developments 
indicate  a  condition  of  hidden  immorality  worse  than  that  of 
society  at  large.  In  addition  to  these  means  of  efficient  purifi- ' 
cation,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  an  overwhelming  pro- 
portion of  the  French  priesthood  hold  their  preferment  solely 
at  the  pleasure  of  their  superiors,  who  are  thus  able  at  once 


Thus,  in  1861,  the  journals  gave    their  conversion.     One  of  his  victims 


mil  publicity  to  the  trial,  by  the 
criminal  court  of  Douai,  of  the  Abbe 
Mallet,  a  canon  of  Cambrai,  who  had 
seduced  three  young  Jewish  girls  and 
procured  their  immurement  in  con- 
vents under  pretence  of  laboring  for 


lost  her  reason  in  consequence  of  her 
aggravated  sufferings,  and  the  rever- 
end criminal  received  the  reward  of 
his  misdeeds  in  a  sentence  to  six 
years'  imprisonment  at  hard  labor. 


560  THE    CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY. 

to  check  the  slightest  irregularity.  Thus,  in  1844,  there  were 
in  France  but  3301  cures  whose  position  was  secure,  while 
27,451  were  curates  who  were  'liable  at  any  moment  to  be 
deprived  of  their  parishes.1  "Where  the  assured  income  is 
only  1000  or  1500  francs,  where  the  duties  are  so  laborious 
and  the  supervision  so  watchful,  there  is  little  likelihood  that 
the  ministry  will  be  sought  by  unfit  persons  or  for  improper 
objects. 

In  Eome  itself,  where  the  ancient  system  flourishes  in  full 
vigor,  I  can  readily  believe  that  the  ancient  abuses  remain 
unpurifled.  On  such  a  subject,  proof  that  is  above  suspicion 
is  not  easy  to  obtain.  Where  justice  is  in  the  hands  of  men 
more  anxious  for  the  reputation  of  their  class  than  for  the 
virtue  of  its  members ;  where  scandal  is  more  dreaded  than 
crime;  and  where-,  out  of  a  population  of  3,124,668  in  1853, 
no  less  than  38,320  were  vowed  to  celibacy,  one  can  readily 
believe  the  assertion  of  the  erratic  and  epigrammatic  Edmond 
About,  that  chastity  in  a  churchman  is  a  quality  sufficiently 
uncommon  to  attract  especial  attention  to  its  possessor.2 

Even  in  Italy,  however,  the  days  of  these  excesses  are  pro- 
bably numbered,  except  in  so  far  as  they  are  connected  with 
the  insoluble  problem  of  the  pontifical  territories.  The  for- 
mation of  the  kingdom  of  Italy  is  rapidly  effecting  a  revolu- 
tion in  the  religious  condition  of  the  rest  of  the  peninsula. 
Not  only  is  there  perfect  legal  toleration  for  Protestant 
propagandism,  but  Catholicism  itself  is  recognized  as  distinct 
from  papacy,  and  the  antagonism  between  the  latter  and 
the  temporal  authorities  is  working  a  change  the  ultimate 
results  of  which  no  one  can  foretell.  The  secularization 
of  church  property,  the  breaking  up  of  monastic  establish- 
ments, and  the  removal  of  all  civil  disabilities  on  clerical 
marriage  have  already  placed  Italy  in  advance  even  of  France 
as  to  legislation.  If  no  reaction  occurs,  these  measures  must 
eventuallv  effect  reforms  of  the  most  radical  character. 


1  Dupirt,  op.  cit.  pp.  238-9.  I  du   temps   qu'il    etait    jeune  pretre ; 

„,,.,.,.  , ,    .    .  ,  -    merite  assez  commun  chez  nous,  mais 

■  In  his  tribute  to  the  virtues  of    rareet  miracnloUx an  del& des monts. » 

Pius  IX. ,  Aboil i  remarks-"  Sesmoeurs  |  _Question  Romaine}  p.  18i. 

sont  pures,  et  l'ont  toujours  ete,  meme  '  r 


RECENT    MOVEMENTS   IN   ITALY.  561 

Already  there  lias  arisen,  even  in  the  bosom  of  the  church 
itself,  a  party  clamorous  for  change.  As  early  as  1862,  Father 
Passaglia  headed  a  movement  in  which  nine  thousand  ecclesi- 
astics petitioned  the  pope  for  such  alterations  in  the  economy 
and  discipline  of  the  church  as  would  place  it  in  harmony 
with  the  progress  of  the  age,  and  among  the  demands  made 
of  Eome  was  one  that  "the  priest  shall  be  restored  to  his 
country  by  restoring  to  him  the  chaste  and  tranquil  affections 
of  the  family."  Passaglia,  however,  was  premature.1  The 
state  had  not  yet  declared  itself  superior  to  the  church ;  the 
ecclesiastical  structure  was  yet  strong,  and  possessed  the 
power  of  enforcing  the  subordination  of  the  most  refractory 
of  its  members  by  depriving  them  of  the  means  of  livelihood. 
In  what  direction  this  power  was  necessarily  exercised  may 
be  guessed  by  the  temper  of  the  encyclical  of  December  8th, 
1864,  which  denounced  "the  criminal  enterprises  of  those 
wicked  men  who,  spreading  their  disturbing  opinions  like 
the  waves  of  a  raging  sea,  and  promising  liberty  when  they 
are  slaves  to  corruption,  endeavor,  by  their  pernicious  writ- 
ings, to  overturn  the  foundations  of  the  Christian  Catholic 
religion  and  of  civil  society ;"  while,  among  the  errors  con- 
demned in  section  viii.  of  the  appendix,  was  one  respecting 
the  celibacy  of  the  clergy.  The  thunders  of  the  Vatican, 
however,  have  lost  their  terrors,  and,  since  the  unification 
of  Italy  has  raised  a  temporal  power  able  to  withstand  the 
pretensions  of  the  church,  the  reformatory  spirit  within  the 


1  "The  vast  majority  of  the  priests 
who  subscribed  to  Passaglia's  protest 
against  the  temporal  power  were  men 
of  the  above  low  caste  and  description. 
1  Such  men'  (and  remark  that  it  was 
one  who  had  himself  collected  some 
three  thousand  signatures  to  the  docu- 
ment in  question  who  made  use  of  the 
expression) — 'such  men   attach  very 


a  living,  independent  of  the  caprice 
and  tyranny  of  their  superiors.  But 
when  they  had  done  this  and  stood 
out  a  few  days,  and  found  that  their 
mass  was  refused  them  at  the  sacristy, 
and  that  they  were  threatened  with  a 
permanent  interdiction  from  their  only 
means  of  getting  a  living,  unless  they 
repented  of  their  act  of  insubordina- 


little  importance  to  signing  anything,'  j  tion  (such  as  it  was)  and  succumbed — 
and   will    easily    abjure    the    second  I  then  they  withdrew  their  names,  and 


day  what  they  have  pledged  them 
selves  to  on  the  first.     They  signed, 
doubtless,  with  some  vague  hope,  per- 
haps, of  shaking  off  their  bondage,  or 
under  the  idea  that  they  were  doing  [  1866. 
something  which  should  secure  them 

86 


thought  no  more  about  the  matter." — 
Letters  from  Florence  on  the  Religious 
Reform  Movements  in  Italy,  by  Wil- 
liam Talmadge,  pp.  118-19.     London, 


562  THE    CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY. 

ecclesiastical  establishment  grows  daily  bolder  and  more  out- 
spoken. 

Since  1862  there  has  existed  an  association  nnder  the  name 
of  the  Societa  Emancipatrice  e  di  Mutuo  Soccorso  del  Sacerdozio 
Italiano,  which  has  been  able  to  support  a  newspaper  as  its 
organ,  the  Emaneipatore  Cattolico  of  Naples,  and  its  efforts  are 
aided  by  a  similar  journal  in  Florence,  the  Esaminaiore.  The 
reform  aimed  at  by  this  body  in  the  discipline  and  structure 
of  the  church  is  thoroughly  radical.  In  June,  1865,  it  pro- 
mulgated a  "platform"  which  proposes  to  deprive  the  pope 
and  the  Roman  curia  of  their  irresponsible  autocracy,  to 
restore  to  the  prelates  their  diocesan  jurisdiction,  to  render 
all  ecclesiastical  dignities  elective,  to  banish  Latin  from  the 
church  services  and  to  circulate  the  Scriptures  in  Italian,  to 
render  auricular  confession  voluntary  in  place  of  obligatory, 
to  establish  complete  toleration,  and  to  abolish  compulsory 
celibacy.  This  latter  point  is  felt  to  be  of  much  importance ; 
and  now  that  there  is  no  secular  law  to  prevent  sacerdotal 
marriage,  and  that  ecclesiastical  subordination  is  so  much 
weakened,  there  are  no  insuperable  obstacles  to  prevent  the 
ministers  of  the  church  from  exercising  their  discretion  on 
the  subject.  Dr.  Prota,  the  president  of  the  "Societa  Eman- 
cipatrice," in  a  letter  of  October  30th,  1865,  replying  to  nu- 
merous inquiries  addressed  to  him  with  regard  to  it,  does  not 
hesitate  to  advise  his  friends  to  marry  and  to  persist  in  the 
exercise  of  their  functions,  "and  the  more  who  do  so  at  once 
and  simultaneously  the  safer  for  all ;  for  the  bishops  will  ven- 
ture the  less  to  persecute  you  in  the  face  of  public  opinion."1 
It  would  be  premature  to  venture  a  prediction  as  to  the  pro- 
bable result  of  these  movements,  but  their  serious  character 
may  be  estimated  from  the  fact  that  they  have  the  countenance 
and  even  the  pecuniary  support  of  a  statesman  so  powerful 
as  the  Baron  Ricasoli. 

One  of  the  fruits  of  these  efforts  is  already  seen  in  the  law 
of  June  28th,  1866,  by  which  all  the  religious  corporations 


Talmadge,  op.  cit.  pp.  160-168. —  i  ported  by  the  lower  tribunal,  but  the 


Already  the  journals  of  the  day  are 
recording  the  success  of  these  efforts. 
Thus,  in  1866,  the  registrar  of  Genoa 
refused  to  sanction  the  civil  marriage 
of  a  priest,  and  his  refusal  was  sup- 


court  of  appeals  reversed  the  decision, 
and  affirmed  the  legal  right  of  eccle- 
siastics to  marry.  A  considerable 
number  are  said  to  have  since  availed 
themselves  of  the  privilege. 


RECENT    MOVEMENTS   IN   ITALY. 


563 


in  the  kingdom  of  Italy  are  suppressed,  their  members  and 
dependents  pensioned  or  subsidized,  and  their  property  con- 
fiscated to  form  a  fund  for  popular  education.  The  student  of 
the  past  may  be  pardoned  a  feeling  of  regret  at  the  destruction 
of  the  venerable  institutions  which  for  a  thousand  years  fos- 
tered the  religious  growth  of  Christendom ;  but  the  civiliza- 
tion which  they  made  possible  has  outgrown  them,  and  the 
progress  of  humanity  demands  the  removal  of  that  which  has 
outlived  its  usefulness,  and  has  become  only  a  stumbling-block 
in  the  path  of  human  improvement.1  Against  all  this  the 
church  has  ttius  far  protested  in  vain,  though  its  attitude  of 
opposition  is  boldly  and  persistently  maintained.  Thus  the 
pope,  in  his  allocution  of  October  30th,  1866,  declares  to  be 
null  and  void  the  suppression  of  the  monastic  orders,  the  secu- 
larization of  ecclesiastical  property,  and  the  civil  marriage 
act,  which  leads,  as  he  assumes,  to  a  system  of  scandalous 
concubinage  ;2  and  he  further  denounces  the  censures  of  the 


1  Monte  Casino,  the  venerable  mo- 
ther of  Western  monachism,is  spared, 
and  will  be  maintained  intact  as  a  na- 
tional monument.  More  significant, 
perhaps,  is  the  same  favor  shown  to 
Savonarola's  convent  of  San  Marco, 
though  this  may  possibly  have  been 
done  in  consideration  of  its  frescoes. 

The  process  of  secularization  has 
been  a  rapid  one.  Already,  in  Janu- 
ary, 1867,  the  journals  report  that  the 
occupants  of  the  monasteries  have 
nearly  all  dispersed,  some  of  them  re- 
turning to  their  families,  some  of  them 
accepting  refuge  offered  to  them  by 
the  charitable,  but  the  greater  number 
clubbing  together  and  hiring  houses, 
in  which  they  live  in  common  as  of 
old.  It  is  impossible  not  to  feel  sym- 
pathy for  unfortunates  whose  crime 
consists  in  having  been  born  two  cen- 
turies too  late,  and  who  are  made  to 
expiate  the  sins  of  a  system  which 
they  have  reverently  received  from 
their  forefathers. 

2  The  persistent  medievalism  of  the 
church  of  Rome  is  not  manifested  only 
in  papal  allocutions  and  encyclicals. 
I  have  before  me  a  penny  tract,  pub- 
lished in  London  in  1864,  one  of  an 
authorized  series  addressed  to  chil- 
dren, "permissu  superiorum,"  by  the 


Rev.  J.  Furniss,  C.  S.  S.  R. ,  which  illus- 
trates the  influences  exercised  on  the 
people,  and  the  mode  by  which  edu- 
cated and  experienced  men  seek  to 
acquire  and  extend  their  power.  It  is 
a  description  of  Hell,  skilfully  adapted, 
by  a  most  vivid  description  of  material 
torment,  to  fill  the  untrained  mind  of 
childhood  with  indelible  terror.  The 
visions  of  St.  Frances  and  St.  Theresa, 
and  the  speculations  of  St.  Bonaven- 
tura,  are  gravely  related  as  absolute 
facts.  Hell  is  four  thousand  miles 
below  the  surface  of  the  earth,  is  il- 
limitable in  extent,  and  is  filled  with 
dark  fire  and  sulphur.  The  Devil  is 
a  huge  horned  monster  breathing  fire, 
fastened  to  a  beam  with  chains  of  red- 
hot  iron,  and  waited  upon  by  millions 
of  little  devils,  whom  he  despatches 
to  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe,  to 
tempt  children  to  sin.  If  a  little  spark 
of  Hell-fire,  less  than  a  pin-head,  were 
thrown  into  the  ocean,  "  in  one  mo- 
ment it  would  dry  up  all  the  waters 
of  the  ocean,  and  set  the  whole  world 
in  a  blaze."  So  "if  one  single  body 
was  taken  out  of  Hell  and  laid  on  the 
earth,  in  that  same  moment  every 
living  creature  on  the  earth  would 
sicken  and  die.  Such  is  the  smell  of 
death  from  one  body  in  Hell."     An 


564  THE   CHURCH    OF   TO-DAY. 

church  against  their  authors.  Whether  the  intrigues  of  the 
Paolotti  or  the  complications  of  foreign  politics  will  render 
these  denunciations  more  than  a  brutum  fulrnen  remains  to 
be  seen.  In  any  event,  they  are  interesting  as  showing  the 
immutable  determination  of  those  who  control  the  papal 
policy  to  maintain  inviolate  the  traditions  of  the  church. 

Possibly  in  this  resolute  immobility  the  Eoman  curia  may 
be  overestimating  its  strength.  A  very  significant  movement 
is  recorded  in  the  journals  of  November,  1866,  by  which 
some  Catholic  priests  of  Hungary,  desiring  the  permission  to 
marry,  and  recognizing  the  futility  of  an  appeal  to  the  visible 
head  of  the  church,  have  united  in  petitioning  the  national 
Diet  to  accord  to  them  the  license  which  they  desire.  Even 
though  their  numbers  may  not  be  great,  the  method  which 
they  have  adopted  is  portentous  for  the  future.  A  change  in 
the  landmarks  of  thought  may  also  be  observed  in  the  fact 
that  the  popular  preacher  of  Paris,  Pere  Hyacinthe,  himself 
a  barefooted  Carmelite,  has  so  little  reverence  for  the  asceti- 
cism of  the  past  that  his  course  of  sermons  in  Notre  Dame, 
during  Advent,  1866,  is  devoted  mainly  to  urging  upon  his 
hearers  the  necessity  of  marriage. 

While  the  doctrines  of  medieval  Christianity  are  thus  los- 
ing ground  in  some  of  their  strongholds,  it  is  curious  to 
observe  them  reappearing  in  quarters  from  which  they  had 
long  been  expelled.  Thus,  in  England,  where  the  rapid  ex- 
tension and  the  activity  of  Dissent  have  drawn  the  attention 
of  earnest  men  to  the  deficiencies  of  the  Establishment,  there 
has  arisen  a  movement  known  as  "Ritualism,"  which  seeks  a 
remedy,  not  in  progress,  but  in  retrogression.  Refusing  to 
recognize  in  the  aristocratic  constitution  of  their  church  the 
source  of  the  evils  which  they  so  vigorously  denounce,  the 
leaders  of  this  reform  persuade  themselves  that  a  return  to 


eternity  of  burning,  choking,drowning, 
flogging,  and  fighting  in  this  abode  of 
horrors  is  promised  to  all  children  who 
neglect  mass,-  confession,  and  cate- 
chism, and  do  not  obey  their  priests. 
(The  Sight  of  Hell,  by  the  Rev.  J.  Fur- 


niss,  C.  S.  S.  R.     Dublin  and  London, 
1864.) 

How  many  young  intellects  are 
stunted  to  the  requisite  condition  of 
passive  obedience  by  cruel  trash  like 
this  can  only  be  known  to  the  Searcher 
of  hearts. 


RITUALISM.  565 

medievalism  will  restore  activity  and  vigor  to  institutions  of 
which  the  chief  imperfection  already  is  to  be  found  in  the 
absence  of  what  may  be  termed  the  popular  element. 

These  ritualistic  views  have  recently  been  authoritatively 
proclaimed  in  a  volume  which  is  a  singular  anachronism 
when  viewed  as  the  production  of  Englishmen  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.1  In  it  may  be  found  most  of  the  principles 
which  led  to  the  sacerdotalism  of  the  middle  ages,  and  which, 
followed  up  by  the  lively  faith  and  reverence  for  tradition  dis- 
played by  the  writers,  can  hardly  fail  of  the  same  results. 
Minds  which  can  bitterly  denounce  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  are  fully  prepared  to  contemplate  the 
superior  holiness  of  virginity  with  all  the  mystic  ardor  which 
inspired  St.  Martin  and  St.  John  Chrysostom.2  It  is  there- 
fore not  surprising  to  find  that  monastic  vows  and  clerical 
celibacy  are  regarded  as  the  'panacea  which  is  to  infuse  new 
life  into  what  they  regard  as  the  worn-out  and  effete  Estab- 
lishment of  the  Anglican  church.  The  experiment,  indeed, 
has  already  been  tried  at  Norwich,  under  the  auspices  of  Mr. 
Lyne,  or  "  Brother  Ignatius,"  but  its  signal  failure  does  not 
seem  to  have  dampened  the  ardor  of  the  disciples. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  feel  respect  for  the  motives  of  these 
gentlemen  and  sympathy  for  them  in  the  consequences  which 
can  hardly  fail  to  result  to  men  who,  in  a  matter  so  vital  to 
themselves,  so  fatally  mistake  the  tendencies  of  the  age.  Yet 
the  world  cannot  afford  to  be  put  back  four  centuries,  and 
those  who  attempt  to  oppose  its  progress  must  of  necessity 
be  crushed.  At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  admitted  that  they 
have  had  some  encouragement  from  the  application  of  the 
principle  of  association  and  division  of  labor  to  Christian 
work,  resulting  in  the  formation  of  sisterhoods  devoted  to 
charity.  Of  these  there  are,  I  believe,  at  this  time  about  forty 
in  England,  and  several  have  been  organized  in  this  country. 


1  The  Church  and  the  World :  Es-  |  the  Rev.  T.  Thellusson  Carter,  which, 
says  on  Questions  of  the  Day  by  va-  |  in  its  admiration  for  the  better  life  of 
rious  writers.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  ;  virginity  and  in  its  arguments  to  de- 
Orby  Shipley.  Second  Edition.  Lon-  :  rive  a  recommendation  of  celibacy 
don,  1866.  |  from  the  words  of  the  Saviour,  would 

,  c  t,         ,  ..         o/jr»s  t,    '  have  satisfied  Bellarmine  himself. 

2  See  an  Essay  (op.  cit.,  p.  360)  by 


566 


THE   CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY 


The  vow  taken  on  entering  some  of  these  communities  is  irre- 
vocable. In  others  it  is  not,  but  the  period  of  probation  is 
long,  and  it  is  expected  that  no  one  will  become  a  confirmed 
sister  without  at  least  the  intention  of  devoting  her  life  to 
the  duties  assumed.  In  this,  the  moral  power  exercised  on 
the  devotee  is  likely  to  be  as  efficient  as  the  canons  of  which 
the  history  has  been  traced  above.  In  the  House  of  Dea- 
conesses at  Kaiserwerth,  for  instance,  there  is  no  authority  to 
enforce  the  vow  of  celibacy  imposed  on  admission,  but  the 
disposition  which  leads  a  postulant  to  enter  and  the  influences 
which  surround  her  daily  life  render  expulsion  a  much  more 
probable  result  than  voluntary  withdrawal. 

Such  institutions,  where  self-abnegation  is  sanctified  by 
religion,  are  very  different  from  those  which  seek  to  exalt  the 
selfish  aspirations  of  the  recluse  into  forgetfulness  of  all  the 
duties  imposed  on  man  by  his  Creator.  It  is  therefore  by  no 
means  strange  that  they  should  prove  attractive  to  earnest 
and  pious. minds,  and  should  thus  have  a  tendency  to  increase 
in  an  age  so  intensely  practical  as  the  present.1 

In  fact,  monasticism  outside  of  Italy  and  France  has  rarely 
been  more  flourishing  or  more  vigorous  than  it  is  to-day. 
Pius  IX.,  himself  a  tertiary,  has  spared  no  effort  to  restore  dis- 
cipline where  it  had  been  neglected,  to  encourage  the  formation 
of  new  societies,  and  to  promote  the  extension  of  the  old.  In 
1860  there  were  thus  no  less  than  83  male  orders  and  congre- 
gations, with  7,065  establishments,  and  about  100,000  mem- 
bers, while  of  female  orders  and  congregations  there  were 
94,  with  9,247  establishments  and  more  than  100,000  members. 

The  most  powerful  cause  that  has  conduced  to  this  has  been 
that  the  church,  yielding  at  length  to  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and 
warned  by  the  successive  secularization  of  its  temporalities 
in  one  kingdom  after  another,  has  learned  to  direct  its  efforts 
in  those  quarters  where  the  benefits  of  the  monastic  system 
are  greatest  and  its  evils  least.     Eecognizing  the  great  truth, 


1  It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whe- 
ther the  results  produced  are  a  fair 
equivalent  for  the  amount  of  power 
expended.  In  the  Insane  Asylum  at 
Kaiserwerth,  for  instance,  the  number 


of  patients  is  only  about  double  that 
of  the  sisters  and  attendants  allotted 
to  it.  (De  Liefde,  Charities  of  Eu- 
rope, Vol.  I.) 


CHARACTER   OF   MODERN    MONASTICISM.       567 


reserved  for  these  latter  days  to  proclaim  as  indisputable,  that 
every  man  must  earn  for  himself  the  place  he  occupies  in  the 
world,  the  endeavor  of  the  church  is  no  longer  to  agglomerate 
around  a  sensual  and  idle  community  the  wealth  which  would 
only  pander  to  its  vices,  but  to  render  useful  by  associated 
action  and  thorough  training  the  benevolent  self-abnegation 
which  in  other  communions  is  too  apt  to  be  lost  or  frittered 
away  for  want  of  judicious  combination  and  direction. 

Even  amid  the  horrors  of  the  French  Eevolution,  when 
conventual  vows  were  forbidden  and  the  monastic  orders 
were  scattered  ruthlessly  abroad,  the  gentle  virtues  and  the 
tireless  ministrations  of  the  Sisters  of  Charity  won  for  them 
respect  and  toleration  from  the  cruel  fanatics  who  respected 
and  tolerated  nothing  else.  When,  even  under  the  Concordat 
of  1801,  the  re-establishment  of  the  monastic  orders  was 
strictly  prohibited,  and  those  which  endeavored  timidly  to 
organize  themselves  under  the  names  of  Plres  de  la  Foi,  Sacre- 
coeur  de  Jesus,  &c.  were  in  1804  broken  up  without  ceremony, 
the  charitable  associations  of  females  were  not  interfered  with. 
In  1809  and  1810  fresh  measures  were  taken  to  prevent  the 
formation  or  introduction  of  religious  orders  consisting  either 
of  drones  or  intriguers,  yet  at  the  same  time  a  special  decree 
placed  under  the  fostering  care  of  Madame  Letitia  the  women 
who  devoted  themselves  to  works  of  charity  and  mercy.1  So, 
during  the  storms  of  1826-7  and  1844-5,  when  the  underhand 
patronage  of  authority  threatened  the  restoration  of  monastic 
institutions,  and  the  united  voice  of  the  bench  and  the  tribune 
demanded  the  enforcement  of  the  prohibitory  laws,  not  a  hand 
was  raised  against  the  gentle  ministrants  whose  mission  was  to 
reverently  follow  their  Eedeemer  in  healing  the  sick,  feeding 
the  hungry,  and  lessening  the  burdens  of  the  miserable. 

Though  at  times  mistaken  in  the  spirit  of  the  age ;  though 
often   misled   by  pride,   by  ambition,   and   by  avarice,   the 


1  At  the  same  time,  the  state  refused 
to  recognize  the  right  of  any  one  to 
abstract  himself  irrevocably  from  so- 
ciety. The  law  wisely  prohibited  en- 
gagements for  life  in  any  service,  and 
this  was  held  applicable  to  the  religi- 
ous congregations,  in  which,  by  the 
decree  of  Feb.  18,  1809,  the  period  of 


engagement  was  limited  to  five  years. 
— Deoret  du  18  Fev.  1809,  Sect.  n. 
art.  8  (Dupin,  Droit  Eccles.  p.  295). 
This  regulation,  I  believe,  is  still  in 
force,  and  the  members  of  these  bodies 
are  accustomed  to  renew  their  engage- 
ments every  five  years. 


568  THE    CHURCH    OF    TO-DAY. 

Eoman  church  has  missed  its  aim  and  neglected  its  vocation, 
yet  on  the  whole  it  has  manifested  that  adaptation  to  the 
wants  of  successive  generations  which  is  the  source  of  its 
power  and  the  condition  of  its  existence.  As  the  early  Bene- 
dictines and  Columbites  were  the  Apostles  of  Northern 
Europe,  carrying  with  them  the  seeds  of  that  religion  and 
civilization  which  were  to  develop  so  slowly  yet  so  gloriously; 
as  in  the  thirteenth  century  the  worn-out  institutions  of 
sacerdotalism  were  regenerated  in  the  boundless  energy  and 
self-devotion  of  the  Franciscans  and  Dominicans ;  as,  in  the 
tortuous  policy  and  brutal  self-indulgence  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  Jesuits  arose  to  defend  the  shattered  church  with 
all  the  resources  of  unscrupulous  fanaticism  adapted  to  the 
character  of  the  time ;  so  now,  in  the  hard-working  practical 
nineteenth  century,  which  has  such  scant  toleration  for  idle- 
ness, the  institutions  of  the  church  mould  themselves  to  the 
necessities  of  the  age.  It  is  not  new  and  fantastic  forms  of 
worship  nor  insane  freaks  of  asceticism — not  the  pillar  of 
Stylites,  the  stigmata  of  St.  Francis,  nor  the  thong  of  the  Fla- 
gellants that  now  are  sought  for,  but  systems  through  which 
the  charity  of  the  many  may  be  efficiently  administered  by 
the  labor  of  the  few.  When  celibacy  is  assumed,  not  in  the 
hope  of  a  life  of  ease  and  indulgence,  not  in  the  pride  of 
pharisaical  holiness,  not  in  the  lust  of  exaggerated  macera- 
tion, not  in  the  selfish  hope  of  purchasing  by  solitude  and 
mortification  the  beneficence  of  an  all-merciful  Creator,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  wholly  devoting  a  life  to  relieving  the 
misery  of  fellow-men,  the  sternest  Protestant,  if  he  have  in 
him  aught  of  humanity,  cannot  deny  that  institutions  which 
in  their  prosperity  have  wrought  so  much  evil,  contain 
fruitful  germs  of  good  capable  of  development  through  ad- 
versity and  tribulation. 

This  is  the  fair  side  of  the  picture,  and  if  the  system  only 
resulted  in  the  self-devotion  to  public  charity  of  those  who  by 
nature  and  education  are  specially  fitted  to  minister  to  the 
wants  of  their  fellow  creatures,  and  if  it  involved  only  a 
voluntary  engagement  to  be  laid  aside  as  circumstances  might 
require,  it  ought  to  arouse  little  opposition.  When,  however, 
the  celibacy  of  the  sacerdotal  class  becomes  a  point  of  faith, 


THE   PRESENT   AND   THE   FUTURE.  569 

and  it  separates  forever  the  •  minister  of  religion  from  the 
world,  we  have  seen  the  countless  ills  that  may  follow  in  its 
train.  A  sacerdotal  caste  whose  interests  are  in  many  re 
spects  antagonistic  to  those  of  the  society  in  which  its  mem- 
bers live ;  whose  dominant  aim,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
must  be  the  temporal  advancement  of  its  church,  is  apt  to 
prove  a  dangerous  element  in  the  body  politic,  and  the  true 
interests  of  religion  are  almost  as  likely  to  receive  injury  as 
benefit  at  its  hands,  especially  when  it  is  armed  with  the  tre- 
mendous power  of  confession  and  absolution,  and  is  subjected 
to  strict  subordination  to  a  hierarchy.  Such  a  caste  would 
seem  to  be  the  inseparable  consequence  of  compulsory  celi- 
bacy, and  the  hierarchy  which  is  founded  on  it  can  scarcely 
fail  to  become  the  enemy  of  human  advancement,  so  long  as 
the  priest  continues  to  share  in  the  imperfections  of  our  com- 
mon humanity. 

It  would  be  fruitless  at  this  hour  to  speculate  as  to  the 
future.  We  may  be  on  the  eve  of  great  changes,  but  it  is 
not  easy  to  anticipate  a  change  so  radical  as  that  which  would 
permit  the  abolition  of  celibacy.  The  traditions  of  the  past 
must  first  be  forgotten ;  the  hopes  of  the  future  must  first  be 
abandoned.  The  Latin  church  is  the  most  wonderful  structure 
in  history,  and  ere  its  leaders  can  consent  to  such  a  reform 
they  must  confess  that  its  career,  so  full  of  proud  recollec- 
tions, has  been  an  error. 


INDEX 


ABBEY  lands,  difficulties  concern- 
ing the,  430 
granted  to  courtiers  in  England,  476 
not  revendicated  by  the  church,  496 
Abbo,  St.,  of  Fleury,  his  murder,  158 
Abelard  and  Heloise,  283 
Abingdon,  Abbey  of,  172 
About,  Edm.,   on  virtue  of  Italian 

clergy,  560 

Abrogation  of  celibacy  recommended 

by  Alexander  III.,  337 

by  Bishop  William  Durand,  397 

by  Emperor  Sigismurid  at  Coun- 
cil of  Bale,  398 
by  Cardinal  Tudeschi                       398 
by  Pius  II.,                                       399 
by  Emperor  Ferdinand  and  Ger- 
man princes,                          447,  457 
by  Emperor  Maximilian  II.,          460 
by  Emperor  Joseph  II.,                   545 
Absolution,  abuse  of,                                536 
Abstinentes,  34 
Abuses  of  monastic   system  in  fifth 

century,  108 

of  confessional,  353,  422,  535 

of  power  of  absolution,  536 

Abyssinian  church,  98 

Acephali,  or  wandering  clerks  113 

Adalbero  II.  of  Metz,  159 

Adam  de  la  Halle,  346 

Adela  of  Flanders  tries  to  reform  the 

Flemish  clergy  273 

Adela  of  Flanders,  miraculous  cure  of,  394 
Adelaide  of  Savoy  urged  to  persecute 

married  clergy,  212 

Adrian    I.    defends    the    purity    of 

Roman  clergy,  138 

Adrian  II.,  his  horror  at  the  Luthe- 
ran marriages,  414 
reproaches  the  Diet  of  Niirnberg,  416 
Adulterous  wives  of  ecclesiastics.     49,  74 
of  Huguenot  pastors,  540 
JElfric,  St.,  of  Canterbury,  his  efforts 

at  reform,  177 

JEneas  Sylvius  recommends  abroga- 
tion of  celibacy,  399 
African  bishops  married  in  7th  cent.,     95 
church,    celibacy   recommended 

to,  in  386  67 

submits  to  celibacy,  76 

immorality  of,  86 

Agapetaj,  39,  52  I 


Agapetse,   condemned  by  council   of 

Elvira,  48 

Agde,  council  of,  in  506,  85 

Agen,  Manicheism  at,  in  1100,  216 

Aimoin  relates  the  death  of  St.  Abbo,   158 
Aix-la-Chapelle,  council  of,  in  836,       140 
capitulary  of  817,  139 

Alain  del'Isle  on  immorality  of  clergy,  334 
on  heresies  of  Waldenses,  375 

Alberic  of  Marsico,  157 

Alberic  of  Ostia  holds  the  council  of 

Westminster,  295 

Albert  of  Bavaria  urges  clerical  mar- 
riage, 449 
Albert  of  Brandenburg   founds    the 

dukedom  of  Prussia,  425 

Albert  of  Hamburg  reproves  clerical 

bigamy,  188 

requires  his  clergy  to  keep  their 
women  out  of  the  towns,  197 

Albert  of  Mainz  tempted  to  apostasy,  426 
he  endeavors   to  prevent  clerical 
marriage,  411 

Albigenses,  Manicheism  of,  217,  370 

Alcobaca,  Abbot  of,  head  of  Order  of 

St.  Michael,  368 

Aldebert  of  Le  Mans,  his  scandals,  278 
Aldhelm,  St.,  admiration  of  virginity,  167 
Alexander  II.  suppresses  the  Liber 

Gomorrhianus,  196 

receives  the  papacy,  209 

competes    for    archbishopric    of 

Milan,  218 

his  missions  to  Milan,  223 

failure  of  his  reforms,  214 

places  Erlembaldo  in  command 

of  Milanese,  226 

harmonizes  the    Milanese    trou- 
bles, 228 
letter  to  William  the  Conqueror,  286 
Alexander  III.   tries   to  reform  the 

English  church,  296 

his  zeal  in  enforcing  the  canons,    331 
inclines  to  clerical  marriage,  337 

regulates  hereditary  priesthood,    437 
Alexander  IV.  tries  to  suppress  im- 
morality, 346 
deplores  the  corrupting  influence 
of  the  clergy,  353 
Alexander  VI.,  character  of,                  359 
grants  marriage  to  two  military 
orders,  368 


572 


INDEX 


Alexander  VI. ,  reforms  the  Benedic- 
tines, 393 
Alfred  the  Great,  laws  of,  170 
Alphonso  I.  of  Portugal  founds  Order 

of  St.  Michael,  368 

Alphonso  VI.  of  Castile   asks  for  a 

legate,  318 

Alphonso  VIII.  of  Castire  becomes . 

a  canon  of  Compostella,  321 

Alphonso  X.  of  Castile  denies  apos- 
tolic origin  of  celibacy,  33 
his  legislation,                                    323 
Altmann,  St.,  of  Passau,                        241 
Amandus  of  Maestricht,                          129 
Ambrose  (St.)   admits  the  inobserv- 
ance of  celibacy,  69 
exiles  Jovinian,  71 
clerical   marriage    attributed  to 
him,                                                  220 
Ammonius,  St.,                                         196 
Ammonius  Sacca,                                       41 
Anabaptists,  the,                                       429 
Ancarono,  his  opinion  as  to  immunity 

of  priestly  concubines,  351 

Ancyra,  council  of,  in  314,       48,  52,  101 
Andrew  of  Tarentum,  127 

Angelric  of  Vasnau,  a  married  priest 

in  893,  146 

Anglican  church,  the,  463-507 

reaction  in  the,  565 

clergy,  disrepute  of  marriage  of,  506 

Anglo-Irish  church,  disorders  of,  312 

Anglo-Saxon  church,  condition  of, 

164-183 
Anjou,  council  of,  in  453,  83 

Anne  of  Cleves,  her  marriage  with 

Henry  VIII.,  486 

Annates,    English,    withdrawn    from 

the  pope,  467 

of  Mainz  in  16th  century,  405 

Anse,  council  of,  in  990,  161 

Anselm  of  Canterbury  on  sacraments 

of  sinful  priests,  204 

tries     to     reform    the     English 
church,  287-292 

Anselmo  di  Badagio  (see  Alexander  II.) 
Anselmo,  St.,  of  Lucca,  his  troubles,    232 
Anthony,  Archbishop  of  Prague,  en- 
deavors to  enforce  Tridentine 
canons  in  1565,  529 

rebukes     clerical    marriage    in 

1578,  530 

attributes  heresy  to  clerical  im- 
morality, 531 
Antidicomarianitarians,  71 
Antioch,  council  of  in  269,                       40 
Antisacerdotalism  of  Vigilantius,  74 
medieval,                                            371 
Antony  of  Ephesus,                                     90 
Antony,  St.,  renders  hermit  life  po- 
pular,                                                    102 
Antonio  Fluviano,  tries  to  reform  the 

Knights  of  Malta,  369 

Antwerp,  synod  of,  in  1610,  532,  534 

Apocalypsis  Goliae,  298 


Apollo,  priestesses  of,  24 

Apostate    Catholic  clergy,   marriage 

forbidden  to,  542 

monks  returned  to  convents,  112 

Apostles,  marriage  of,  25 

Apostolic  canons,  30,  47 

constitutions,  30,  37,  46 

origin  of  celibacy  denied,  32 

Apotactici,  34,  42 

Appeal  to  the  laity  by  Hildebrand,      244 
Appellate  power  a  source  of  corruption,  143 
abandoned,  -334 

Ap  Rice  and  the  Abbot  of  Walden,       479 
Aquinas,    St.   Thomas,  denies   apos- 
tolic origin  of  celibacy,  32 
on  vows  and  marriage,                    334 
Arguments  of  Damiani   for  clerical 

celibacy,  213 

Arialdo,  St.,  of  Milan,  218 

he  rouses  the  Milanese,  221 

his  martyrdom.  227 

Arians,  morals  of  in  Spain,  124 

Arith,  Wm.,   denounces  the   sins   of 

the  clergy,  509 

Aries,  council  of  in  314,  48 

second  council  of  in  443  71,  83 

Armagh,  hereditary  archbishopric  of,  310 
Armenia,  hereditary  priesthood  in,  96 
Arnolfo,  a  martyr  to  asceticism.  356 

Articles,   the  Forty-two,   of  the  An- 
glican church,  490 
the  Thirty -nine,  of  the  Anglican 

church,  503 

Six,  act  of  the,  485 

Artois,  council  of,  in  1025,  217,  371 

Ascetic  sects  among  the  Jews,  22 

heresies,  34 

irregularities,  .  39 

Asceticism  of  Brahmins,  22 

of  Buddhists,  24 

ofChaldees,  22 

of  Pythagoras,  24 

not  ordained  of  Christ,  24 

popular,  in  J  lth  century,  254 

Aschaffenburg,  council  of,  in  1292,      204 

Assermente  clergy  of  1790,  548 

they  oppose  clerical  marriage,       552 

Athanasius,  St.,  56 

Athenagoras,  testimony  of,  28,  35 

Atto  of  Vercelli,  150 

Auditors  of  the  Manicheans,  44 

Augsburg,  council  of  in  952,  53,  153 

in  1548,  436,  443 

in  1567,  534 

in  1610,  525 

Augsburg,  Diet  of,  in  1518,  408 

in  1530,  427 

in  1548,  432 

its  plan  of  reformation,  443 

in  1551,  and  1555,  434 

Augsburg,  Confession  of,  427 

Augustine,     St.,    controversy     with 

Faustus,  44 

his  treatise  on  marriage,  45 

admits  the  chastity  of  Jovinian,      72 


INDEX. 


573 


Augustine,  St.,  on  celibacy  in  Africa,  78 

marriage  of  nuns  binding,  106 

marriage  not  dissolved  by  vows,  327 

Augustine  of  Canterbury,  166 

Augustinians    of    Saxony    abandon 

monachism  in  1521,  412 

of  Niirnberg,  disband  in  1524,  418 

Aurelian  of  Carthage,  77 

Ausch,  Congres  fraternel  of,  in  1793,  551 

Austrasian  Dukes,  policy  of,  130 

Autun,  council  of,  in  690,  85 

Auvergne,  council  of,  in  535,  85 

Auxerre,  council  of,  in  578,  85 

Republicans  of,  on  celibacy,  in 

1793,  551 

d'Avesnes,  case  of  the,  336 

Avignon,  influence  of  papacy  on,  357 

council  of,  in  1594,  538 

Avis,  order  of,  368 

Avranches,  council  of,  in  1172,  332 

Azzo,  receives  the  archbishopric   of 

Milan,  229 


60 


BACCHIC  solemnities, 
Bale,  Bishop  of  Ossory,  advocates 
clerical  marriage  in  1548, 
Bale,  council  of, 

reconciles  the  Hussites, 
clerical  marriage  proposed  at, 
canon  of,  revived  in  1544,      446, 
Balsamon, 

Bamburg,  description  of  clerical  mo- 
rals in  1505, 
Bandello,  his  novels, 
Bangor,  clergy  of,  their  petition  to 

Cromwell, 
Barbarians,  virtue  of  in  5th  century, 

they  occupy  the  bishoprics, 
Barcelona  dependent  on   the  Carlo- 

vingians, 
Bari,  military  bishops  of, 
Barsuma  introduces  marriage  in  the 

Nestorian  church, 
Basil,  St.,  enforces  theNicene  canon. 
Basilica  of  Leo  the  Philosopher, 
Basilides, 
Bavaria,  marriage  of  nuns  in  772, 

Duke  of.  urges  clerical  marriage,  449 
Beatoun,  Cardinal,   trial   of  George 
Wishart, 
his  character  and  death, 
Bede  (Venerable)  his  arguments  from 
Old  Testament, 
his  admiration  of  virginity, 
Beggars'  petition,  the, 
Begghards  and  Beguines, 
Bellarmine  argues  against  Paphnu- 

tius, 
Benedict.  St.,  of  Nursia, 

rule  of,  adopted  as  ecclesiastical 

law,  134,  137 

additions  made  in  817,  139 

revived  in  11th  century,  190 

Benedict  the  Levite,  capitularies  of,    142 


488 
388 
383 
396 
512 
93 

422 
420 

479 

87 

121 

316 

187 

97 
89 
92 
35 
138 


518 
511 

66 
165 
469 
378 

55 
114 


Benedict  VIII.  endeavors  to  reform 

the  clergy,  184 

Benedict  IX.,  186,  191 

Benedict  XIV.  on  abuse  of  absolu- 
tion, 537 
Benedict  of  Camin,  tries  to  reform  his 

clergy,  395 

Benedictine  order,  number  of  saints 

in,  117 

discipline  in  1496,  393 

Benefices,  hereditary  transmission  of, 

in  the  10th  century,  149,  157 

evil  tendencies  of,  236 

universal   in  Normandy  in   12th 

century,  272 

in  Britanny,  273 

in  Burgundy,  279 

forbidden  by  council  of  London 

in  1102,  288 

allowed  by  Paschal  II.  in  1107,      290 
condemned  by  Lucius  II.  in  1194, 

295 
universal  in  England  and  Wales 

c.  1200,  299 

forbidden    by   Cardinal  Otto   in 

1237,  302 

universal  in  Ireland  in  11th  and 

12th  centuries,  310 

permitted  by  Clement  III.,  312 

universal  in  Spain  in  11th  cen- 
tury, 318 
perpetuated  by  dispensing  power,  335 
deprecated  by  Celestine  III.,         339 
forbidden  by  Lateran  council  in 

1215,  340 

allowed  in  Livonia  by  Innocent 

IV. ,  349 

forbidden   by   Clement  VII.   in 

1530,  437 

regulated  by  Alexander  III.,        437 

papal  dispensations  for  in  1559,     438 

condemned  by  council  of  Trent,    455 

legislation  of  Pius  V.  in  1571,       524 

of   synod   of   Augsburg    in 

1610,  525 

Benefices   held   on  feudal  tenure  of 

chastity,  .       157 

Benefice    and  wife,  priest  to  choose 

between,  271 

Benefit   of  clergy  for  concubines  of 

priests,  350 

for  married  priests,  416 

Benzo,    his   denunciation    of    Hilde- 

brand,  205 

his  praise  of  celibacy,  251 

Berenger  of  Tours,  269 

Bernald    of   Constance    rejects    the 

story  of  Paphnutius,  55 

Bernard  of  Tiron  tries  to  reform  the 

Norman  clergy,  272 

Bernard,  St.,  his  miracles,  280 

points  out  dangers  of  celibacy,       343 

condemns  manicheism,  371 

Bernard  de  Font-Cauld  on  heresies  of 

Waldenses,  375 


574 


INDEX 


Bernhardi,    Bartholomew,    the    first 

married  priest  in  1521,  411 

Besancon,  synod  of,  in  1707,         534,  536 
Beze,  abbey  of,  279 

Bigamy  among  Saxon  clergy,        173,  178 
clerical,  in  11th  century,  188 

Bisantio  of  Bari,  187 

Bishop,  St.  Paul's  requisites  for,  36 

Bishops,  Libyan,  married  in  7th  cen- 
tury, 95 
in    Greek  church,    forbidden  to 

marry,  97 

lay,  under  the  Merovingians,         122 
military,  of  10th  and  11th  cen- 
turies, 157,  187 
two  classes  of  in  Brehon  law,         309 
married,  proceedings  against  in 

1553,  493 

married,  in  France,  541 

constitutional,  on   clerical  mar- 
riage, 553 
dismissed  under  Concordat,    557 
Bishoprics   occupied   by  the  Barba- 
rians,                                             121 
hereditary,  in  Britanny,                  273 
in  Ireland,                     310 
to  be  erected  from  English  mo- 
nasteries,                                        466 
only  five  so  founded,                        476 
Blacater,    Archbishop    of    Glasgow, 

persecutes  the  Lollards,  508 

Bohemia,  the  Begghards  of,  379 

Bohemian    clergy,    marriage    of,    in 

109S,  257 

in  12th  century,  259 

in  1578,  530 

the  Hussites,  383 

reconciled  by  council  of  Bale,   384 

Bois-le-Duc,  synod  of,  in  1571,  534 

in  1612,  532 

Bologna,  council  of  Trent  transferred 

to,  in  1547,  440 

Boniface,    St.,   scruples   to  associate 

with  Frankish  clergy,  130 

he  undertakes  their  reformation,   131 
attempts  on  his  life  by  married 

clergy,  136 

he  exhorts  the  Anglican  church 
to  virtue,  168 

Boniface  of  Canterbury,  304 

Boniface  of  Lausanne,  exiled  by  his 

clergy,  352 

Bonizo  of  Piacenza,  martyrdom  of,       233 
Bonner,  Bishop  of  London,  proceed- 
ings against  married  priests,  494 
Bonosus  of  Sardica,  70 
Bordeaux,  councils  of,  in  1583,  1624,  539 
Bosnia,  heretics  of,                                   371 
Bossaert  d'Avesnes,  case  of,                   335 
Bossuet,  his  supposed  marriage,            544 
Botoa,  monastery  of,                                320 
Bourges,  council  of,  in  1031,                 185 
in  1528,                                             436 
in  1584,                                                539 
in  1800,                                                553 


Boussard,    Geoffroy,    on    dispensing 

power,  399 

Bracara,  councils  of,  in  563,  572,  and 

675,  85 

Bracton  recognizes  concubines  as  le- 
gitimate, 205 
Brahma,  absorption  into,  23 
Brahminical  asceticism,  22 
Bran  da,  Cardinal,  tries  to  reform  the 

German  church,  387 

Brandenburg,  Albert  of,  425 

Bremen,  council  of,  in  1266,  265 

Breslau,  council  of,  in  1279,  264 

in  1416,  348 

in  1580,  530 

Brethren  of  the  Cross,  384 

Brice,  St.,  case  of,  81 

Bristol,  bishopric  of,  established  in 

1541,  476 

Britanny,  condition  of  church  in  11th 

century,  272 

heretics  of,  372 

British  clergy  under  Saxon  domina- 
tion, 164 
Brixen,  synod  of,  in  1080,  251 
in  1603,  534 
Brou-Lauriere,  de,  case  of,  557 
Bruges,  synod  of,  in  1693,  534 
Bruno  of  Toul,  195 
Brunswick,  canons  of,  their  morals  in 

1476,  394 

Bruys,  Pierre  de,  his  heresy,  372 

Buddha,  born  of  a  virgin,  73 

Buddhist  asceticism,  24 

Bulgaria,  priestly  marriage  permitted 

in,  by  Nicholas  I.,  145 

Bull,  Papal,  Exsurge  Domine,  408 

Ad  Canonum,  437 

abolishing  English  monasteries, 

464-465 

excommunicating  Henry  VIII.,    471 

reconciling  England,  496 

Cum  Primum,  524 

Horrendam,  524 

Quae  Ordini,  524 

Ad  Romanum,  525 

Postquam  Verus,  526 

Cum  sicut  nuper,  535 

Universi  Dominici  Gregis,  535 

Sacramentum  Poenitentiaa,  537 

Burckhardt  of  Worms,  his  canons,       184 

Burckhart,  John,  of  Oberwesel,  399 

Bure,  Idelette  de,  Calvin's  wife,  540 

Burgos,  council  of,  in  1080,  318 

Burial  rites  refused  to  married  priest,  200 

Burnet's  account  of  clerical  vices,       468 


CABRIERES,  execution  of,  376 

Cadalus  of.  Parma,  209 

receives  the  support  of  .the  Mila- 
nese, 225 
Cadam,  Transaction  of,  in  1533,            431 
Caesarius  of  Aries,  rule  of,  116 
Caietano,  Card.,  on  dispensing  power,  399 


INDEX. 


575 


Cain  Patraic   admits  two   classes  of 

bishops,  309 

Calabria,  neglect  of  celibacy,  in  5th 

century,  80 

Calabrian  clergy,  marriage  of,  in  12th 

century,  333 

Calatrava,  order  of,  367 

Calchuth,  council  of,  in  787,  169 

Calenders,  Turkish  order  of,  22 

Calini,  Archbishop,  letters  on  council 

of  Trent,  452 

Calixtins,  the,  383 

Calixtus  II.  undertakes  a  reform,         281 
credited  with  enforcing  celibacy,  282 
causes  marriage  to  be  dissolved 
by  orders  and  vows,  326 

Calixtus  "  de  Conjugio  Clericorum,"  545 
Calne,  council  of,  in  978,  176 

Calvin,  John,  his  marriage,  540 

his  Confession  of  Faith,  540 

Calvinists  of  France,  539 

Camaldoli,  monks  of,  190 

Cambrai,  Manicheism  at,  in  1025,  216 
resistance  to  Hildebrand  in  1077,  249 
synod  of,  in  1550,  447 

in  1565  and  1567,  538 

in  1661,  536 

Camin,  synods  of,  in  1454  and  1492,    395 
Campeggi,  his  efforts  to  repress  cleri- 
cal marriage,  415 
tries  to  reform  the  priesthood  in 

1524,  421 

rejects  project  of  accommodation 
in  1530,  429 

Canones  Apostolorum,  30,  47 

Canons,    order   of,    founded    by   St. 

Chrodegang,  138 

Canterbury,  Christ  Church,  reformed 

in  1006,  177 

Capacities  granted  to  ejected  monks,  471 
Capito,  TV.  F.,  of  Strasburg,  married 

in  1524,  416 

Caprara,  Cardinal,  and  the  married 

priests,  554 

Caraffa,  Cardinal,  442 

Cardinalate,  childlessness  a  prerequi- 
site for  the,  526 
Cardinal's  college,  founded  by  TVol- 

sey,  464 

Carloman  seeks  to  reform  the  church,  131 
enters  Monte  Casino  in  747,  137 

Carlostadt  approves  the  marriage  of 

priests,  412 

Carnarvonshire,  complaint  of  laity  of,  392 
Carlovingians,  their  early  policy,  130 

change    under     Carloman     and 

Pepin,  131 

policy  of  reform,  138 

Carlovingian  empire,  decadence  of,      142 

Carracioli,  Bishop  of  Troyes,  married,  541 

Carter,  Rev.  T.  T.,  his  advocacy  of 

celibacy,  565 

Carthage,  first  council  of,  in  348,  60 

second  council  of,  in  390,  76 

third,  in  397,  76 


56 

150 

316 

35 

370 

522 

466 

417 

41S 

450 
457 
271 
419 


Carthage,  fourth  council  of,  in  398,   46,  76 

fifth,  in  401,  77 

sixth,  in  419,  78 

in  411,  110 

Carthage  immorality  of,  '     86 

Carthusians  executed  by  Henry  VIII.,  467 

Cassander,  George,  argues  in  favor  of 

clerical  marriage,  458 

Cassianus,  John,  rule  of,  104,  114 

Cassiodorus  gives  the  story  of  Paph- 

nutius, 
Caste,  sacerdotal,  forming  in  tenth 

century, 
Castile,  independence  of  church  of, 
Cathari, 

Medieval  or  Albigenses,         217, 
Catherine  de  Medicis  and  the  council 

of  Trent, 
Catherine  of  Aragon,  her  cause  sus- 
tained by  the  monks, 
Catherine    von    Bora    escapes   from 
Nimptschen, 
married  to  Luther  in  1525, 
Catholic   colleges  unpopular  on   ac- 
count of  celibacy, 
priesthood  assume  the   right  of 
marriage,  433, 

Caumont,  court  at,  allows  choice  be- 
tween benefice  and  wife, 
Causes   of  opposition  to  celibacy  in 

16th  century, 
Celestine  III.,  his  decision  on  vows 

and  marriage,  334 

deprecates  hereditary  priesthood,  339 
Celibacy,  influence  of,  on  history,  19 

first  authoritatively  decreed,  65 

triumphant  in  the  Latin  church,     76 
the  principal  bar  to  reconcilia- 
tion of  Lutherans,  433 
erected  into  a  point  of  faith  in 

1528,  436 

and  by  the  council  of  Trent  in 
1563,  453 

Celichyth,  council  of,  in  816,  170 

Celsus,  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  310 

Cenobitic  life,  commencement  of,         102 
Ceres,  priestesses  of,  24 

Cesarini,  Cardinal,  his  letter  to  Eu- 

genius  IV.,  388 

Chalcedon,  council  of,  100,110 

Chaldeans,  asceticism  of,  22 

Chalons,  council  of,  in  649,  85 

in  893,  146 

Chantries,  suppression  of,  in  England,  475 
Characteristics  of  the  10th  century,     147 
of  modern  monachism,  567 

Charlemagne,    his     earnestness     for 

sacerdotal  celibacy,  138,  140 

Charles  Martel,  oppresses  the  church,   132 
Charles   the  Lame,  fines  concubines 

of  priests,  350 

Charles  IV.  (Emp.),  tries  to  reform 

the  monks,  352 

Charles   V.,   his  policy  towards  the 

Reformation,  427-431 


576 


INDEX 


Charles  V.— 

willing  to  abrogate  celibacy  in 

1541,  431 

proclaims  the  Interim,  432 

refuses  to  follow  council  of  Trent 

to  Bologna,  440 

his  plan  to  reconcile  the  churches 

in  1541,  442 

attempts  to  reform  the  German 

church  in  1548,  443 

demands    the     reassembling    of 

council  of  Trent,  in  1551,  434 

Charles  Borromeo,  St.,  his  reforms,     526 

Charter  of  Oswalde's  Law,  174 

of  1814  and  1830,  556,  558 

Chartreuse,  Grande,  women  refused 

admission  to,  394 

Chataigneu,  Abbe,  case  of,  558 

Chatillon,  Cardinal  Odet  de,  541 

Chaucer,  deprecates  corrupting  influ- 
ence of  clergy,  353 
Cheregato  demands  benefit  of  clergy 

for  married  priests,  416 

Chertsey,  abbey  of,  reformed,  175 

Chester,  bishopric  of,  established  in 

1541,  476 

Children  of  ecclesiastics  in  the  tenth 

century,  149,  152 

ordained  by  Adalbero  of  Metz,     159 
disabilities  imposed  on,  185 

openly  provided  for  in  11th  cen- 
tury, 187 
refused  preferment  by  Henry  the 

Black,  192 

admitted  by  Alex.  II.,  214 

disinherited  in  Denmark  in  1266,  265 
acknowledged  in  Normandy  in 

12th  century,  272 

have    claims  on   paternal  bene- 
fice, 279 
disallowed     by    council     of 
London  in  1102,  288 
admitted  to  orders  by  Paschal  II. ,  290 
ejected  by  Lucius  II.  in  1194,        295 
universal  in  England  and  Wales 

c.  1200,  299 

forbidden  by  Cardinal  Otto,  in 

1237,  302 

universal  in  Spain  in  11th  and 

14th  centuries,  318,  323 

favored  by  dispensing  power,         335 

forbidden  by  Celestine  III.,  339 

by  Lateran  council  in  1215,    340 

rendered  heritable  by  Frederic 

II.,  346 

fruitless     efforts     to     disinherit 

them,  347-349 

legislation    of  Clement  VII.  in 

1530,  437 

papal  dispensations  to,  in  1559,     438 
regulations  of  council  of  Trent,    455 
of  Scottish  councils  in  1549 

and  1559,  512-513 

of  Pius  V.  in  1571,  524 

Synod  of  Augsburg  in  1610,  525 


Children  of  ecclesiastics — 
in  Salzburg  in  1616, 
in  Osnabruck  in  1625, 
of  apostate  priests  legitimated, 
Christ  Church  of  Canterbury  reform- 
ed in  1006, 
Christians,  a  heretic  sect  of  Bosnia, 
Chrodegang,    St.,    founds    order    of 

Canons, 
Church,  Latin,  influence  of, 
Church   begins   to    degenerate   with 

prosperity,  59,  64 

Church  despoiled   under    pretext   of 

purifying  it, 
Church,  and  the  revolution  of  16th 

century, 
Church-lands    not     restored     under 

Mary, 
Circester,  council  of,  in  1289, 
Circumcelliones,  105, 

Cirita,  St.  Juan,  temptation  of, 
Cis-Alpine  Gaul,  gradual  observance 

of  celibacy  in, 
Cistercian  order,  relaxation  of  disci- 
pline in, 
Civilization    imperilled    by   clerical 
marriage, 
influence  of  monachism  on, 
Clarembald,  of  St.  Augustine's, 
Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Clement  (pseudo),  decretal  of, 
Clement,  a  heretical  bishop  in  745, 
Clement  II., 

Clement    III.    tries   to    reform   the 
church, 

admits  marriage  of  Greek  priests,  339 
Clement   VII.    prohibits    hereditary 

benefioes,  437 

authorizes  secularization  of  Eng- 
lish monasteries,  464 
Clergy    subjected    to    the   Levitical 

rule,  31,  37,  49 

worse  than  laity,  173,  279,  296,  353, 

355,  386,  422,  448,  511,  524 

Clergy,  married,  high  character  of, 

in  11th  century, 
Clericature  refused  to  digami,         36, 
Clermont,  council  of  in  1095, 

in  1130, 
Cleves,    Duke    of,    on   corruption    of 
clergy, 


529 
533 
541 

177 
371 

138 
17 


212 

404 

496 
353 
110 
115 


393 

149 
363 
296 
25,  27 
27 
135 
191 

338 


211 

284 
277 
328 

448 


Clotair   II. forbids  marriage  of  nuns,  118 

Clyff,  council  of,  in  747,  169 

Cnut,  his  ecclesiastical  laws,  179 

Code  Napoleon,  priestly  marriage  in,  555 

Colet,  John,  his  efforts  at  reform,  463 
Colleges,  Elizabeth  banishes  women 

from,  504 
Cologne,  Archbishop  of,  tries  to  re- 
form his  clergy  in  1548,  445 
council  of,  in  1146,                       .  217 
in  1260,  348 
in  1306,  378 
in  1307  and  1310,  351 
in  1423,  387 


INDEX. 


577 


533, 


48,  52, 


532, 


Cologne,  council  of,  in  1527, 
in  1536, 

in  1548  and  1549, 
in  1550  and  1551, 
in  1651, 
in  1662, 
Manicheism  at,  in  1146, 
Coloman,  King,  enjoins  celibacy  on 

Hungarian  clergy, 
Columba,  asceticism  of, 
Columbites,  demoralization  of, 
Commendone,  his  account  of  clergy 
of  Cleves, 
he  threatens  Maximilian  II., 
Comparative  merits  of  marriage  and 
virginity,  44,  45,  331, 

Complaints  of  Germany  against  Rom  e 
403, 
Compostella,  character  of  church  of, 
councils  of  in  1056  and  1113, 
in  1114, 
Compromises  of  the  Gallic  church, 
Concilium  Abrincense,  ann.  1172, 
JEnhamense,  ann.  1009, 
Agathense,  ann.  506, 
Amalfitanum,  ann.  1597, 
Ancyrense,  ann.  314, 
Andegavense,  ann.  453, 
Ansanum,  ann.  995, 
Antiochenum,  ann.  269, 
Antverpiense,  ann.  1610, 
Aquense,  ann.  1585, 
Aquisgranense,  ann.  836, 
Arausicanum  I.,  ann.  441, 
Arelatense  I.,  ann.  314, 

II.,  ann.  443, 
Argentinense,  ann.  1549, 

ann.  1687, 
Arvernense  I.,  ann.  535, 
Atrebatense,  ann.  1025, 
Audomarense,  ann.  1583, 

ann.  1640, 
Augustanum,  ann.  952, 
ann.  1548, 
ann.  1567, 
ann.  1610, 
Augustodunense,  ann.  690, 
Aurelianensia  I. — V.,  ann 
533,  538,  541,  549, 
III.,  ann.  538, 
Autissiodorense,  ann.  578, 
Avenionense,  ann.  1594, 
Basiliense,  ann.  1432, 
Bisuntinense,  ann.  1707, 
Bituricense.  ann.  1031, 
ann.  1528, 
ann.  1584, 
Boscodunense,  ann.  1571, 

ann.  1612, 
Bracarensia  I.,  II.,    III.,  ann 

563,  572,  675, 
Bremense,  ann.  1266, 
Brixiense,  ann.  1080, 

ann.  1603, 
Brugense,  ann.  1693, 

37 


217, 


53, 

436, 


511, 


383, 
534, 


435 
438 
445 
446 
534 
534 
216 

262 
165 
313 

448 

462 

361 

408 
317 
317 
322 

79 
332 
177 

85 
528 
101 

83 
161 

40 
534 
539 
141 

79 

48 
,  83 
446 
534 

85 
371 
539 
534 
153 
443 
534 
525 

85 

85 
71 
85 
538 
388 
536 
185 
436 
539 
534 
532 

85 
265 
251 
534 
534 


Concilium — 

Burdigalensia,  ann.  1583,  1624 
Burgense,  ann.  1080, 
Cabilonense,  ann.  649, 

ann.  893, 
Caesaraugustanum,  ann.  381,  60,  103 

ann.  592, 
Calcuthense,  ann.  787, 
Calrae,  ann.  978, 
Cameracense,  ann.  1550, 

ann.  1565,  1567,  1631, 

ann.  1661, 
Caminensia,  ann.  1454,  1492, 
Capuense,  ann.  3S9, 
Carthaginense  I.,  ann.  348, 

II.,  ann.  390, 

III.,  ann.  397, 

IV.,  ann.  398, 

V.,  ann.  401, 
ann.  411, 

VI.,  ann.  419, 
Celichythense,  ann.  816, 
Chalcedonense,  ann.  451, 
Circestrense,  ann.  1289, 
Claromontanum,  ann.  1095 

ann.  1130, 
Cloveshoviae,  ann.  747, 
Coloniense,  ann.  1146, 

ann.  1260, 

ann. 1306, 

ann.  1307,  1310, 

ann. 1423, 

ann.  1536, 

ann. 1548, 1549, 

ann.  1550,  1551, 

ann. 1651, 

ann.  1662, 
Compostellana,  ann.  1056,  1113,    317 

ann.  1114,  322 

Consentinum,  ann.  1579,  528 

Constantiense,  ann.  1415,       358,  386 

ann.  1567,  421,  534 

ann. 1609,  532,  534 

Constantinopolitanum,  ann.  381,     89 

ann.  400, 
Culmense     et     Pomesan., 

1745, 
Dalmatiae,  ann.  1199, 
Dingolvingense,  ann.  772, 
Dormundense,  ann.  1005, 
Dublinense,  ann.  1217, 
Dunelmense,  ann.  1220, 
Eboracense,  ann.  1195, 
Ebroicense,  ann.  1576, 
Edinburgense,  ann.  1549, 
Egarense,  ann.  614, 
Eliberitanum,  ann.  305, 
Epaonense,  ann.  517, 
Erfurdiense.  ann.  1074, 
Florentinum,  ann.  1573, 
Fontanetense,  ann.  1058, 
Frisingense,  ann.  1440, 
Fritzlariense,  ann.  1246, 
Gangrense,  ann.  362, 
Gerundense,  ann.  517, 


539 

318 

85 

146 


85 

169 

176 

447 

538 

536 

396 

70 

60 

76 

76 

46,  76 

77 

110 

78 

170 

100,  110 

353 

277 

328 

169 

217 

348 

378 

351 

387 

438 

445 

446 

534 

533,  534 


90 


ann. 


534 
263 
138 
159 
313 
301 
301 
538 
512 

85 
36,  47,  59 

85 
242 
528 
222 
389 
348 

61 

85 


578 


INDEX. 


Concilium — 

Gerundensia,  ann.  1068,  1078,       318 

Gnesnense,  ann.  1577,  530  I 

Guastallense,  ann.  1106,  258  | 
Ilamuiaburgense,  ann.  1406,          350  ! 

Harlemense,  ann.  1564,  523  i 

Hierosolymitanum,  26  ! 

Hildesheimense,  ann.  1652,  534  j 

Hispalense  I.,  ann.  590,  85  ! 

Hispanicum,  Sasc.  XIII.,  323 

Hydense,  ann.  975,  176 

Ilerdense,  ann.  523,  85 

Ingelenheimense,  ann.  826,  139 

ann. 948,  153 

Iprense,  ann.  1629,  534 

Juliobonense,  ann.  1080,  270  j 

Lanciciense,  ann.  1197,  264 

Laodicense,  ann.  372,  100  i 

Lateranense  I.,  ann.  1123,  326  j 

II.,  ann.  1139,  328 

IV.,  ann.  1215,  340  ■ 

V.,  ann.  1514-16,  420  | 

Legionense,  ann.  1114,  322  j 
Leodiense,  ann.  1131,              259,  328 
ann.  1548,                           445,  448  | 

Leptinense,  ann.  743,  134  j 

Lexoviense,  ann.  1055,  270 

Londoniense,  ann.  1075,  286 

ann.  1102,  287 

ann.  1108,  291 

ann.  1126,  293 

ann. 1129,  294 

ann.  1200,  301 

ann.  1268,  305 

Lovaniense,  ann.  1574*,  534 

Lovitiense,  ann.  1556,  457 

Lugdunense  III.,  ann.  583,  ''  85 

ann. 1528,  437 

Magdeburgense,  ann.  1403,  354 

Mantuanum,  ann.  1053,  198 

ann. 1067,  210 

Matisconense  I.,  ann.  581,  85 
Mechliniensia,  ann.  1570,  1607,     534 

Melfitanum,  ann.  1059,  205 

ann. 1089,  255 

Mettense,  ann.  888,  141 

ann.  1604,  1610,  534 

Moguntinum,  ann.  888,  141 

ann.  1049,  197 

ann. 1075,  243 

ann. 1225,  347 
ann.  1261,                         348,  377 

ann.  1527,  415 

ann.  1549,  446 

Monasteriense,  ann.  1279,  536 

ann.  1652,  533 

Namnetense,  ann.  895,  14.1 
Namurcensia,  ann.  1604,  1639,      534 

ann.  1698,  536 

ann.  1742,  537 

Narbonnense,  ann.  1551,  437 

ann.  1609,  539 

Neapolitanum,  ann.  1576,  528 

Neo-Ca;sariense,  ann.  314,  48 

Nicsenum  I.,  ann.  325,  50 


Concilium — 

Nordhusense,  ann.  1105,  257 

Olomucense,  ann.  1342,  348 

ann.  1591,  531 

Osboriense,  ann.  1065,  210 

Oscense,  ann.  598,  85 

Osnabrugense,  ann.  1625,  533 
ann.  1628,                           531,  533 

Ossoriense,  ann.  1320,  313 

Oxoniense,  ann.  1222,  301 

Paderbornense,  ann.  1548,  446 

Palentinum,  ann.  1129,  322 

ann.  1322,  323 

ann.  1388,  324 

Parisiense  V.,  ann.  615,  118 

ann.  1074,  269 

ann.  1212,  345 

ann.  1528,  436 

Pataviense,  ann.  1284,  348 
Patricii  I.,  ann.  456,                 80,  108 

Pharense,  ann.  664,  166 

Pictaviense,  ann.  1000,  161 

ann.  1078,  269 

Placentinum,  ann.  1095,  231 

Pragense,  ann.  1420,  384 

ann.  1565,  529 
Quedlinburgense,  ann.  1085,          252 

Quinisextum,  ann.  680-92,  94 

Ravennense,  ann.  967,  154 

ann.  997,  162 

ann.  1568.  528 

Remense,  ann.  874,  144 

ann.  1049,  197 

ann.  1119,        .  281 

ann.  1131,  328 

ann.  1148,  329 

ann.  1583,  53S 

ann.  1664,  537 

Romana,  ann.  721,  732,  130 

ann.  826,  205 

ann.  1051,  198 

ann.  1059,  203 
ann.  1063,                          205,  211 

ann.  1074,  238 

Rotomagense,  ann.  1072,  270 

ann.  1148,  374 

ann.  1189,  334 

ann.  1581,  541 

Ruremondense,  ann.  1570,  534 

Salernitanum,  ann.  1596,  528 
Salisburgense,  ann.  1569,      436,  529 

Salonense,  ann.  1049,  196 

ann.  1185,  263 

Sandionysiacum,  ann.  995,  158 

S.  Severinum,  ann.  1597,  528 
Schaffnaburgense,  ann.  1292,         204 

Scheningense,  ann.  1248,  265 

Scoticanum,  ann.  1225,  315 

Sedinense,  ann.  1500,  396 

Sipontinense,  ann.  1567,  528 

Spalatense,  ann.  925,  152 

Strigonense,  ann.  1099,  261 

ann.  1382,  1450,  1480,  395 

Suessionense,  ann.  744,  135 

Tarraconense,  ann.  516,  85 


INDEX. 


579 


Concilium — 

Taurinense,  arm.  40],  78 

Telense,  arm.  386,  67 

Ticinense,  arm.  1022,  184 

ann.  1076,  231 
Toletanum  I.,  arm.  400, 

74,  107,  205,  535 
II— XL,  aim.  531,  589, 

597,  633,  653,  655,  675,  85 

III.  arm.  589,  124 

VIII.,  ann.  653,  124 

IX.,  ann.  655,  125 

Tolosanum,  ann.  1056,  268 

ann.  1068,  318 

ann.  1119,  217,  282 

Tornacense,  ann.  1520,  536 

ann.  1574,  539 

Trecense,  ann.  1107,  258 

ann.  1128,  365 

Trevirense,  ann.  1548,  444 

ann.  1678,  534 

Tridentinum,  435-462 

Trosleianuin,  ann.  909,  144 

Turonicum  I.,  ann.  460,  85 

II.,  ann.  567,  85,  123 

ann.  925,  150 

ann.  1060,  206,  268 

ann.  1096,                              ■  277 

ann. 1163,  332 

ann.  1583,  538 

Ultrajectensia,  aim.  1564,  1565,  523 

Urbinatense,  ann.  1569,  528 

Valentinum  I.,  ann.  374,  61,  106 

Vencellinum,  ann.  1109,  262 

Vernoilense,  ann.  755,  137 

Viennense,  ann.  1060,  206 

ann.  1311,  378 

Viennense  (Aust.),  ann.  1267,  264 

Vuitembergense,  ann.  1521,  412 

Warmiense,  ann.  1497,  396 

ann.  1577,  534 

Westmonasteriense,  ann.  1127,  294 

ann.  1138,  295 

Windesoriense,  ann.  1070,  286 

Wintonensia,  ann.  1070,  1076,  286 

Wircebergense,  ann.  1441,  379 

ann.  1548,  446 

Wratislaviense,  ann.  1279,  264 

ann.  1416,  348 

ann.  1580,  530 

Zabolcs,  ann.  1092,  261 

Concordat  of  1801,  554 

Concubine,  recognized  as  legitimate 

until  13th  century,  204 
Concubines,  no  disability  on  account 

of,  284 
of  priests,  benefit  of  clergy  for,  350 
in  the  guise  of  relatives,  535 
Concubinage  favored  by  papal  juris- 
diction, 142 
by  forms  of  procedure,  143 
organized  asasafeguard,  324,  355,  386 
a  capital  offence  under  Six  Arti- 
cles, 484 
licenses  for,  first  allusion  in  1080,  271 


Concubinage,  licenses  for — 

common  in  England  in  1 108,  292 
sold  by  Henry  I.  in  1129,  294 
deprecated  by  Innocent  III. 

in  1212,  345 

forbidden  by  Lateran  coun- 
cil in  1215,  340 
prohibited    by     council     of 

Bale,  389 

in  Hungary  in  15th  century,  395 

reproved  by  Leo  X.  in  1516,  420 

universal  in  1522,  422 

in  Cologne  in  1549,  445 

Condom,  republicans  of,  on  celibacy,  551 

Confession  of  Faith,  Augsburg,  428 

Knox's,  520 

Calvin's,  540 

Confession  of  woman  not  received  in 

evidence,  305 

Confessional,  abuses  of,  353,  422,  535 

Conjo,  S.  Maria  de,  nunnery  of,  321 

Connaught,  condition  of  church  in,  310 
Connivance  of  Elizabeth  at  clerical 

marriage,  501 

Conquest,  Norman,  caused  by  cleri- 
cal sins,  183 
Conrad  of  Lombardy,   revolt  of,  in 

1093,  231 

Conrad  von  Tungen,  Bp.  of  Wurzburg, 

417,  422 
Consenza,  council  of,  in  1579,  528 

Conservatism  of  England,  462 

Consilium  de  emendanda  ecclesia,  441 
Constance    of    Burgundy,    Queen    of 

Castile,  318 

Constance,  assembly  of,  in  1094,  256 

council  of,  deposes  John  XXIII. ,  358 

makes  no  reform,  386 

synod  of,  in  1567,  421,  534 

in  1609,  532,  534 

Constance,  Bishop  of,  protects  his  con- 

cubinary  clergy  in  1260,  352 

Zwingli  demands  marriage  from,  413 
reproves  clerical  vices  in  1567,      421 
Constantine   removes    disabilities   of 

celibacy,  58 

Constantine  Copronymus,  96 

Constantine  of  Metz  ordains  priests' 

children,  159 

Constantinople,  council  of,  in  381,  89 

Constitution  of  1791  permits  clerical 

marriage,  549 

Constitutiones  Apostolorum,  30,  37,  46 
Contarini,  Card.,  condemns  celibacy,  539 
Contempt  for  the  church  caused  by 

its  vices,  346,  353,  421,  435,  450,  459 
Continence,  vows  of,  not  perpetual,  39 
Controversy  on  celibacy  in  18th  cen 

tury  544 

Convention,  the  National,  legislates 

against  celibacy,  553 

Convocation  of  1547  approves  of  cleri- 
cal marriage,  4£7 
of  1553  requests  reestablishment 
of  celibacy,  494 


580 


1  NDKX. 


Oop< "  Ohi  I  i  tin  i 

Ooi i npl Ion  -'i  iii'-  Iftil v  i » %  i Ik-  oli  rgjr, 

:r     .1  loll    I » y     Kllnlll    Of     Poll  ll   I      . 

I,\    A  l>  miimIit   I  V  .  mill  ol  lin-  , 

bj  Plm  v   in  i MT| 

Corrupt  ion  <>r  Knglish  uinua:  tori< 

I  l()|  in.,    ol     I'i.-i-ih   , 

<  'mill,    ll    ill    Ho;, one  v   IiImI  lid        lllll  II  it'll 

|.l  II      I        hi      I 

('ournand,  Prof. |  i«    imii  i  ii  il    pi  "    I   Of 

I,  Ml. 
('.mi  I   nl    A  iij'iin  nhil  [OBI  ■■•iliilili    In  il, 
C.ui  I        imx.-.l,    I,, i     h  i.il    i,|     in:u  i  ll  ,1 

|,i  loitf, 
Cum  I.- •■:in-  .   n.  ri-     il  \    .,l,  in   Homo,    in 

L570, 

<'ra i   'Ii     in     -Iii  ionl  nun  i  in;'.-, 

i<il       I  lin    passage    nl     I  l)i 

A  l  I  leli  :  . 
I  i  lul      III      u  ill     I..   <«<  i  iniillN  , 
in-,       I  Ii.      i  .  OOfl  ml  i,  ,n    (l|    .l.i  |<  III 
nun  i  l|f|  in    Lfl  17, 

trloi  i"  uppi i     •  il<  i  Ionl  ri  iiiui,  \ . 
propnroi  iii"  Poi  i.\  fcwo  k\  I  loll 

OrOIIIOMIl      CXpols       tile      Nioolilo.S       ill 

1066, 

»'l,  ii    .ii.    An. Inn:',    nil     lllill-  i-   nl     III.    ,, 

III I. 

<  'l   IIIH      111,    ll   .1     ill    |,\    I'lll.ll'CCll   Ooli)llle\   , 

Cioinu,  II     bl  lb<  I  j    "I. 

ruiiiin  II    nl   |>i  u'  I  I  y  marriage, 
mil  IgfltOI  tin'  lot  01  Bl  I   A  i  1 1.  1. 

Ill       .l.iWIllllll. 

Oroiitd  i  '  lai     .\i.imt  of(  bli  nl  id 

Mllllll,    . 

Ciilil.-i    ,  |u  mill  i\  <\  asceticism  til', 

noglool  "i  'ii  oipltni  i>.\ , 
iii-.,i i  bod  bj  Dm  "i  i 

"  Ciillngium"  (sec   Lifriiws) 

Culm,    :    |  ll,,, I    ,,l.     III     I  .    I.., 
"  ('iiin:i,|    .■    |)lll 

Ouniboi i   oi    Tiimii,   in. iiiii niir.    i.. 

oloi  ionl  nun  i  iage, 
OflBOgundn,  St.,  Kmpress,  her  vow  .,i 

•     Mill    111.      II,  '<•. 

CiiUiIm'I  I    Ol    Cnnlei  l.iil  \  , 

0]  DOfi  Booh  "i. 

Cyprian    deplores    ecclesiastical    ox 

.-.  ■  :  OS, 

bii  oompni  loom  of  rirglaltj 


L>70 

868 

■U\H 

117 

649 
170 


•I7W 

I:,, 
•is  7 

189 

400 
688 

•170 
•I7U 

486 
486 

I7:i 
ic,., 
818 
814 

684 
809 

..,., 

168 
808 

89 

n 


I  V  AI'.KAUS  of  Spnliilro,  doPOlltlOB 

U    of.  L96 

Dalinalia,  regulations  for,  lfl   L068,  -ll 

;  mi... i  of)  i»  1199,  168 

Dm&muj,  iIi-i-kIiiI  of,  ">  88 1.  66 

endoax 'iir.i  Iii  prevent  nun  rime  ,,| 

nmi  I  Of. 

I  > : 1 1 1 1 : i  -  us    11.,  L96 
1  >n mlioinl.T,    liin  opinion   of   Flemish 

olorgy, 

I'.u.ii.'.m,  Bl    lvi.M,  1st 

in-  in. Hi  m  988|  198 

he  deplores  llio  Into  of  abbots,  loN 


I  illinium,  st   Peter — 

lio  ox  .in, in.      Hi,  ,,l,    linacy  of  llio 

Minnow,  238 

bin  iinci i  ino  idopttd  i>y  oonnoU 
of  Pftrii  in  1MB.  486 

mi. I  by  i',, mini  of  Trout,  Ifi.'l 

|i;nii|,ni  ii-     0AM  Of  llio,  \VM\ 

Dangers     In     ri\  ih/Ml  mn     of     clerical 

nnrrlngo  in  imii  oonl  ,  I -t *«* 

of   celibacy    polntoil    mil,    l.y    St. 
Itornnnl,  848 

Darius,  Sylvester,  papal   culli'clor  in 

Bnglond,  108 

DlUlglltl  i  ■     .,1     . ■<■.   I."  ill    I  i.    I,  7'l 

l'.i\  i. hi  \,     Arehhp      of     r.mili-niix     in 

1806, 

David  (St  )  of  Scotland,  .",11 

D.i\,  .mine. I  nl,   in    [585,  689 

Deaooiies:  i     ,   ,,i  il  i  mi  I  mn  of,  L00 

<,i  k :n ii  i  w.i iii,  566 

Deans  iii   Fl  ii-   him I ,  |im    i   I  iii  nun  I  y 

log,  '    866 

Death  poiuili y  I'm-  marrying  a  nun,         <W) 

I,, i      ■  iii-i-i  ilulnl       111  il  l  I  I  .i  •• .       mn  l.i 

S.N    A.  lio  I  OH,  I       I 

fur  ooiiiin.-Y,  iii  i7u;i,  551 

Decretals,  False,  rolaxation  of  canon 

180 

Dell  illicit  of  cniloiiH  by  nun  i  u,l 

l».  ■.  in  -in.  \ .  imii  l\  ,  of  llio  church, 

69,  I 
Domoernlio  element  in  Hi.-  church,       2.'M 
Doniniirk,  Inwi   nl,  i  oNpool  in  ■    .  ,,ii,  ii 

1,,,,,   .  805 

col i lino y  in,  865 

mined  resistance  to  separation,      '-'(ill 
Dopondofll  oondltion  of  Fronoh  olorgj 

DeHlbrgoH,  his  defence  ofolorloftl  iiiar- 

riftgOi  6 1 1 

Dei  ni.  no:  of  Monti  0*  Ino,  1*7 

i>i'\  .,i.-.    in  i  bo  o.ii  i  v  ohm  oh,  in  i 

Diana.  |n*i<«sls  and  priosfossos  of, 

Din/.,   Hor.u.l,  of  n.lnlmm.,  827 

Dtogo  Qolmlroi,  pnrtlal  roformi  of,     819 

lm  refoi  ins  an  abliey,  '.\'22 

Diol  of  Wi.iuis,  in    1076,  146 

Digaini  ineligilile  to  elm  ioaturo,  Ml,  :i(> 

milimilmn  rofflfOd  I'.V  ( 1 1  OgOIJ  [«,    I '-'7 

•  -•>.. inim.   in  olmii'li  nl    IDIh  oonl,.,     l!i  I 

w  01 1  •  limn  ooiiciiliinai  inn.s,  2H  I 

Dilapidation  of  oluiroli  prOPOl  I  \  ,  126 

...  imii  .-on i. in.  160 

Diloolm,  62 

hiin.-luin  oo.lo,  808 

Diiuilii    Of   Diilniiiliii,  In-   .•niunation 

on  ll.,  268 

Diagolflflg,  oonnoll  6f,  In  772,  L88 

Dionysiao  inysiwries,  66 

I \:  Ini  Of  «'m  mill,  .'i5 

Dionysius  of  l'orlugal  preserves  I  In- 
'r.-iuplars,  868 

Dinahilities  of  celibacy  removed  by 
Constantino,  .r>H 

Disabilities  of  children  of  priests, 

152.  185,  193 


INDEX 


OS! 


Disastrous  Ml  of  clerical 

■  ;j  r  r  i  :i  ■/<-.  tppr«1  4  0': 

•  ttarolMf, 

■liOMj  infl'ienee  of, 
D  911  to  marry  granted  to  St. 

Bwithin,  170 

1/  tOWVf 

of, 

-I  by  PmI  hi., 

MtMli«d  'I  Of  Trent,    469 

Dispensation?,   to   ehil'lren   of  priests 
in   10.00,  4M, 

in  1610, 
Disrepute    of    olorioft]     rnarriago    in 

AagMoM  ehureh, 

D  !  mrirrie'l  prfOftl  un'Jer  Act 

i  Artfolof,     '  4M 

to  mur- 

doi  .-  moo,  W7 

Donatio*!  from  monk*  at  first  refused 
by  MOMtfti  IW 

Donatist  h< 

sinful   priootOj  revived  by  Ni- 

ofeolu  n  2W 

I  -,y  BMdebi  2tt 

and  by  bmoeont  II.,  2M 

eon'J  fH  ,  20 1 

■pprored  by  ootuioil  oi  L  i 

ir.   1102, 

revived  by  Wiekliffe, 
and  by  Huss, 
rt  ooflN^oini  oi  papal  I 

n'Jenburg, 

Dorta  i  -f.  io  WM< 

DofUh  22 

Dualism,  Maaieh  42 

of  AlMfOMOf*  217 

Dublin,  OOtnofl  of,  in  J217, 

Da  Vi      '■'-      -  - 

ar,  Gawain,  reproved  by  Alex. 

0 1 0 

171 

■  rms,  177 

rioEMoo,  Ml 

Doprat,  Cbaaeellor,  n  oaoj 

a  point  Of  faith,  in  )  . 

,'J,  Willmm,  rOOOflMBOttdj  OlOfi- 

eal  i  W7 

Durh.-im,  council  of,  in  1220, 

Dwidja,  22 


EADMKIi,   Uf   account  of  the  re- 
ofoelibaojr,  2^2 

Eastern  church,  the, 
Eaete  m  rn  o  ri  M  fa  1 1  m , 
I  (     I 

forbidden  to  visit  vir;-  64 

to  be  always  accompany/I  by  wit- 
nesses, 123 
fawtMOJ      property,     01        H 

'ury,  I'/) 

rt  of  York  enforces  celibacy,    167 


;    ■  .'< 

,11,  4*1 

Edgar  the  Pacific  reforms  the  I 

rgfi  172 

Bdinb  H9,  119 

Bditb,  Queen,  boi  'i'y,       189 

Kdmund  I.,  UWTI  of,  in  944,  171 

Kdward  Md  ••'•  000,    171 

Edward    II.    (the   Mar  rts 

fan,  1 76 

Edward  the  Confe  16  I 

Edward 

lOOwlOI   driven   from   his 
MO, 

-iests,  restrictions  on  mar- 

24 

<beth,  .004 

44 

Bloooli  1ST 

Klf  he  re   of   Me  re  in.  aid=>   the    marr 

Blfritt  '^y,  177 

',00 
her  Cfttbol  ''00 

forMdi  (an  ■>'><> 

■■>'//;,  .00) 

|  ngly,  Wl 

•  OOi  ir;  'J eo1   r<  -004 

Blpbof  ■  171 

.Yoaoy  in,  47 

mOOl   immorality  of  ■ 
eh, 
BttM  /in   mar- 

rying 426 

42 

MliboOJ  in  4  th  cen- 
tury, 

■-,  century,  Ifl 
171 

in  Lltfe  -ent.ury,  107-2.00 

in  Hungary,  20.'; 

in  Po  204 

in  Denmark,  206 

>nce, 

in  I  2>0-.';04 

ir,  Ireland,                        I  616 

Ingeotland,  -ill 

in  !  p  :;i7 

of  Trent,  402 

oryVIfl,  4S1 
in   1 0th  an 'J  17'.'. 

Engelh  :  of,  in  >20, 

I4J,  j  M 

-n  of  Saxon  church, 

L64-i*6 

Mariioh«-.i*.m  in,  in   I  166,  216 

lition  of  N  . 
Alexander  III.  tl  .d'fetf 

age, 
abuse  of 


582 


INDEX 


England — 

Oxford  plan   of  reformation   in 

1414,  353 

condition  of  church  in  15th  cen- 
tury, 392 
oath  exacted  of  papal  collector 

in  1517,  409 

Reformation  in,  463-507 

abuse    of    confessional    in    13th 

century,  353 

ritualistic  revival  of  celibacy,        565 
Protestant  sisterhoods,  565 

Enham,  council  of,  in  1009,  178 

Enslavement  of  wives  of  ecclesias- 
tics, „  198,256 
Eon  de  l'Etoile,  373 
Epaone,  council  of,  in  517,  85 
Epiphanius,  Manichean  tendencies  of,  46 
deplores  the  agapetae,  53 
controverts  the  Antidicomariani- 

tarians,  71 

acknowledges  the   inobservance 

of  celibacy,  90 

infraction  of  vows   better   than 
sin,  101 

Episcopates  hereditary  in  Ireland,       310 
Epistolae  Obscurorum  Virorum,  407 

Erasmus  regarded  as  a  heretic,  406 

his  satires  on  clerical  corruption,  406 
he  advocates  clerical  marriage,     423 
Erchenbald,  collection  of  laws  by,        141 
Erfurt,  synod  of,  in  1074,  242 

Eriberto  di  Arzago,  218 

Erlembaldo  accepts  leadership  of  Mi- 
lanese ascetics,  226 
revives  the  civil  war,                        228 
his  death  in  1075,                              230 
Ermeland,  synod  of,  in  1497,  396 
in  1577,  534 
Ernest  of  Magdeburg  bribes  the  pa- 
pal court,                                                391 
Erskine,  Lord,  his  spoliation  of  the 

church,  516 

d'Espense,    Claude,    at    Colloquy   of 

Poissy,  71 

Essenes,  22 

Etats,  Trois,  of  Tours,  in  1484,  391 

Ethelbald  of  Mercia,  his  sacrilegious 

license,  169 

Ethelred  the  Unready,  .  177 

Ethelwold,  St.,  of  Winchester,  173 

Eucherius,  St.,  vision  of,  132 

Eugenius  II.,  his  decision  as  to  con- 
cubines, 205 
Eugenius  III.  confirms  the  nullity  of 

clerical  marriage,  329 

Eugenius   IV.    grants    marriage   to 

order  of  Calatrava,  367 

Eulalius  of  Csesarea,  61 

Euphronius  of  Autun,  84 

Euron,  abbey  of,  its  immorality,  278 

Eustathius  of  Sebastia,  61 

Evidence  of  paramour  rejected,  144 

Evils  of  celibacy  diminished  in  mo- 
dern times,  558 


Evreux,  synod  of,  in  1576,  538 
Excalceati,  34 
Excommunication  of  Luther  in  1420,  410 
Exemptions  accorded  to  ecclesias- 
tics, 59 
Expulsion    a  punishment  for    early 

monks,  104 

Extortion  of  papal  officials,  391 

Exuperius,  St.,  favors  Vigilantius,  75 


FALSE  decretals,  27 

relaxation  of  canon  in,  139 

Faricius  of  Abingdon,  238 

Faustus  the  Manichean,  44 

Fecamp,  abbey  of,  reformed  in  990,     160 
Feini,  early  civilization  of,  309 

Felix  of  Nantes,  122 

Fellows  of  universities,  celibacy  of,     505 
Femina  extranea,  52 

Ferdinand  (Emp.)  allows  toleration 

in  1533,  431 

countenances  clerical  marriage,    447 
his    opinion     of    corruption    of 

clergy,  448 

asks    clerical    marriage    of   the 

council  of  Trent,  449 

of  the  pope,  457 

Ferrers,  Alex.,  his  free  speech,  510 

Feudal  oath  of  chastity,  157 

Fish,  Simon,  author  of  Beggars'  Pe- 
tition, 469 
Flanders,    enforcement    of   celibacy 

in,  273 

obstinacy  of  the  clergy,  275 

case  of  the  d'Avesnes  and  Dam- 

pierre,  336 

troubles  of,  attributed  to  clerical 
disorders  in  1610,  532 

Florence,  council  of,  in  1573,  528 

Focarise,  companions  of  the  clergy,      297 
Fontaneto,  council  of,  in  1058,  222 

Forms  of  procedure  against  unchaste 

priests,  143 

France,  introduction  of  clerical  celi- 
bacy, 65 
heresy  of  Vigilantius,  75 
miracles  favoring  celibacy,  81 
effect  on  clerical  morality,  83 
condition    of   the    Merovingian 

church,  121 

the  church  under  the  Carlovin- 

gians,  132-146^ 

hereditary    priesthood    in    10th 

century,  150 

Segenfried  of  Le  Mans,  157 

St.  Abbo  of  Fleury,  158 

three  archbishops  of  Rouen,  160 

council  of  Bourges  in  1031,  185 

Catharism  in  11th  and  12th  cen- 
turies, 216 
reformatory  efforts  in  11th   and 

12th  centuries,  268-284 

increased  immorality  under  the 
reform,  344 


INDEX. 


583 


France,  military  orders  in,  365-369 

heresies  in,  370 

condition  of  the  church  in  1428, 

in  1484, 
effort  to  reform   the    clergy   in 

1528, 
condition  of  clergy  in  1560, 
at  council  of    Trent   assents  to 

clerical  marriage, 
reception  of  council  of  Trent  in, 
abuse  of  confessional    at    Tour- 
nay, 
morals  of  clergy  1560 — 1624, 
the  Huguenot  churches, 
relations  of  Huguenots  and  Ca- 
tholics, 
Revolution  of  1789, 
Marriage  under  the  Restoration, 

under  existing  laws, 
present  state  of  church, 
Pere  Hyacinthe  in  1866, 
Sisters  of  Charity  in  the  Revolu- 
tion, 
limitation  on  vows, 
Franciscans,  foundation  of  order, 
immorality  of  the, 
Spanish,  resistance  to  reform, 
refuse  to  acknowledge  supremacy 
of  Henry  VIII., 
Franciscan   habit,   superstition    con- 
cerning, 
Frankish  clergy,  demoralization  of,  in 

8th  century, 
Fraticelli,  the 
French  Revolution  of  1789, 

monastic    system   suppressed  in 

1789, 
the  clergy  become  reactionary, 
persecution  of  the  refractaires, 
political    use    of    priestly    mar- 
riage, 
marriage  permitted  in  1791, 
it  becomes  a  test  of  patriotism, 
persecution  of  unmarried  priests,  550 
violence  threatened  against  celi- 
bacy, 
numbers  of  married  priests, 
opposition  of  the  people  to  them, 
opposition  of  the  constitutional 

bishops, 
the  Concordat  of  1801, 
marriage  still  practised, 
Sisters  of  Charity  protected, 
Frerots,  the 
Frederic  of  Lorraine, 
Frederic  Barbarossa,  disabilities  on 
clerical  children, 
refused  entrance  at  Fulda, 
Frederic  II.   recognizes  children    of 

ecclesiastics, 
Frederic  of  Saxony  considers  himself 
still  a  Catholic, 
protects  married  priests,         411, 
Freysingen,  council  of,  in  1440, 
Friseland,  celibacy  resisted  in, 


387 
391 

436 
437 

450 
522 

536 
537 
539 

541 
546 
556 
557 
559 
564 

567 
567 
377 
354 
393 

467 

350 

131 

378 
546 

547 

547 
548 

548 
549 
550 


551 
551 
552 

553 
554 
555 
567 
378 
200 

339 
394 

346 

415 

414 
389 
266 


Fritzlar,  council  of,  in  1246,  348 

Fulbert  of   Chartres,   description  of 

military  bishops,  157 

Fulda,  Abbey  of,  women  not  allowed 

to  enter,  394 

Funeral    rites    refused    to     married 

priests,  200 

Furniss,  the  Sight  of  Hell,  by,  563 


GALLIC  church,  passive  resistance 
of,  79 

Gallicia,  first  nunnery  there  in  1129,   321 
council  of,  in  13th  century,  323 

Gangra,  council  of,  in  362,  61 

Gaudin,  his  "  Inconveniens  du  celi- 

bat,"  545 

his  marriage,  549 

Gauthier,  St.,  of  Ponthoise,  269 

Gautier  de  Chatillon,  poem  attributed 

to  him,  298 

Gebliardt  of  Ratisbon,  192 

Gebhardt  of  Eichstett,  192,199 

Gebhardt  of  Salzburg  urged   to  re- 
form by  Hildebrand,  238 
Geddes'    "Apology  for  English   Ca- 
tholics," 546 
Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  gives  the  story  of 

Paphnutius,  56 

Gelasius  I.  deplores  the  marriage  of 

nuns,  H4 

Genebaldus  of  Laon,  122 

Geoffrey  of  Lanthony,  238 

Geoffrey  of  Rouen,  his  vigor,  282 

Gerard  of  Florence,  201 

Gerard  of  Munster  protects  the  mar- 
ried deans,  266 
Gerard  of  Cambrai,  refutes  the  Mani- 

cheans,  371 

Gerard  of  Nimeguen,  his  life  of  Philip 

of  Burgundy,  420 

Gerbert  of  Aurillac,  162 

Germany,  chastity  of  the  Germanic 

barbarians,  .      87 

demoralization  of  church  in  8th 

century,  131 

reforms  of  Boniface  and  the  Car- 

lovingians,  133 

corruption  in  the  9th  century,  140 
marriage  frequent  in  10th  cen- 
tury, 152 
attempts  to  repress  it,  153 
St.  Wolfgang  of  Ratisbon,  156 
Adalbero  of  Metz,  159 
marriage  in  the  11th  century,  188 
the  German   popes   of  the  11th 

century,  191 

Leo  IX.  tries  to  reform  the  Ger- 
man church,  197 
Hanno  of   Cologne   and   Henry 

IV.,  210 

Gregory  VII.  undertakes  the  re- 
form, 238 
Otho  of  Constance,  240 
Altmann  of  Passau,  241 


584 


INDEX. 


Germany — 

Siegfrid  of  Mainz,  242 

appeal  to  the  laity,  244 

persecution     of      the      married 

clergy,  247 

political  aspects  of  the  reform,       249 
the  Imperialists  condemn  cleri- 
cal marriage,  252 
Germany  independent  of  the  pa- 
pacy, 254 
overthrow  of  Henry  IV.,                 257 
reconciliation  with  Rome,  258 
clerical  marriage  still  common,     259 
Otho  IV.  threatens  the  church,      297 
Peter  de  Vinea  on  clerical  vena- 
lity,                                                 298 
clerical    morality   in    12th   cen- 
tury,                                                330 
hereditary   priesthood    in    12th 

century,  339 

children  of  ecclesiastics  in  13th 

century,  347 

William    of  Paderborn  and   his 

monks,  351 

state  of  monastic  discipline,  351 

the  Franciscans  and  their  "  Mar- 
thas," 354 
the  Teutonic  knights,  369 
the  Begghards  and  Beguines,  378 
the  Hussites,  383 
Brethren  of  the  Cross,  384 
Martin  V.  attempts  a  reform,  387 
the  council  of  Bale,  388 
failure  of  its  reform,  390 
Ernest  of  Magdeburg,  391 
morals    of  the   church   in    15th 

century,  394 

John  of  Niklaushausen,  395 

John  ofOberwesel,  399 

the  German  Reformation,       402-434 
internal     reform     necessary    to 

check  the  spread  of  heresy,        435 
council  of  Cologne  in  1536,  438 

Germans    object    to   council    in 

Italy,  439 

pressing  demands  for  reform,         440 
Charles  V.  attempts  a  reform  in 

1548,  443 

efforts  of  local  councils,  443 

their  failure,  447 

Emperor  Ferdinand  demands  cle- 
rical marriage,  447 
corruption  of  the  Catholic  clergy,  448 
Council  of  Trent  rejects  the  de- 
mand for  marriage,                      452 
Ferdinand  renews  the  demand,    .  456 
Maximilian  II.  again  asks  for  it,  458 
Cassander  and  Wicelius,                 459 
refusal  of  the  papal  court,              461 
immorality    of    priesthood    un- 
checked,                                         524 
clerical  marriage  continues  till 

1628,  529-531 

heresy    encouraged    by   clerical 
excesses,  531-532 


Germany — 

morals  after  peace  of  Westpha- 
lia, 533 
abuses  of  confessional  1622-1768,  535 
abuse  of  absolution,                         536 
Joseph  II.  proposes  clerical  mar- 
riage, 545 
Geroch  of  Reichersperg  deplores  the 

immorality  of  the  clergy,  330 

Gerson    regards    concubinage    as    a 

safeguard,  355 

Geruntius  of  Wales,  epistle  of  St.  Aid- 
helm  to,  168 
Gildas,  his  opinion  of  British  clergy,   164 
Giles  Cantor,  heresy  of,  385 
Giovanni  Gualberto,  St.,  190 
Giraldus  Cambrensis  denies  Scriptu- 
ral origin  of  celibacy,  33 
his  statement  as  to  priestly  mar- 
riage,                                              299 
inclines  to  clerical  marriage,          338 
Girona,  council  of  in  517,  85 
in  1068  and  1078,                              318 
Glastonbury,  abbey  of,                             172 
Gloucester,  Austin  Friars  of,  ejected,  473 
bishopric  of,  established  in  1541,  476 
Gnesen,  synod  of,  in  1577,                      530 
Gnostics,  35 
Gobel,  Bishop  of  Paris,                  552,  557 
Godfrey  of  Tuscany  allows  clerical 

marriage,  208 

Godric,    St.,    how   he    subdued    the 

flesh,  115 

Godstow,  the  last  English  monastery,  475 
"Golias  Episcopus,"  poem  attributed 

to,  294 

Gomorrhianus  Liber,  196 

Goslar,  Manicheism  at,  in  1052,  216 

Gotefrido  receives  the  archbishopric 

of  Milan,  229 

Gotfrid  of  Wurzburg,  348 

Goths  of  Spain,  laxity  of  morals,  124 

Gran,  synod  of.  in  1099,  261 

in  1382,  1450,  and  1480,  395 

Grandier,    Urbain,    his    defence    of 

clerical  marriage,        -  543 

Gratian    denies    apostolic    origin    of 

celibacy,  32 

disputes  the  nullity  of  clerical 
marriage,  329 

Gratien,    Archbishop   of  Rouen,    in 

1792,  552 

Greece,  compulsory  celibacy  in,  91 

Greek  church,  rules  of,  31 

gradual  separation  of,  88 

adopts  its  final  policy,  95 

monachism  in,  109 

effort  of  Leo  IX.  to  convert,  in 

1054,  199 

marriage   in,   admitted  by  Cle- 
ment III.,  339-340 
Gregoire,   Bishop  of  Blois,   on  mar- 
ried priests,  554 
his  career,                                           556 
Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  57 


INDEX 


585 


Gregory   of  Vercelli.    impunity   ac- 
corded to,  198 
Gregory  I.,  Manichean  tendencies  of,  45 
declares   monastic   vows   irrevo- 
cable, 117 
insists  on  clerical  celibacy,  126 
relaxation  attributed  to,  in  9th 

century,  140 
evades  sacerdotal  celibacy,  166 
holds  that  marriage  is  not  dis- 
solved by  vows,  327 
Gregory  II.  endeavors  to  reform  the 

church,  130 

on  sacraments  of  sinful  priests,  203 

Gregory  VI.,  his  pontificate,  191 

miracle  at  his  funeral,  195 

Gregory  VII.  condemns  the  story  of 

Paphnutius,  55 
condemns  the  letter  of  St.  Ulric,  154 
returns  to  Rome  in  1049,  195 
increasing  influence  of,  199,  205 
his  purposes,  202 
his  mission  to  Milan,  223 
urges  the  continuance  of  Mi- 
lanese war,  226 
revives  the  Milanese  troubles,  231 
accused  of  separating  husbands 

and  wives,  231 
accepts  the  papacy  in  1073,  234 
legends  illustrating  his  asceti- 
cism, 236 
his  first  efforts  to  enforce  celibacy,  238 
appeals  to  the  laity,  244 
makes  Dimitri  of  Dalmatia  swear 

to  enforce  celibacy,  263 
countenances  secular  oppression 

in  Normandy,  271 
tries  to  reform  the  Breton  and 

•     Flemish  churches,  273 

neglects  the  English  church,  285 
endeavors  to  subdue  the  Spanish 

church,  318 

results  of  his  theocracy,  359 

his  death,  252 
his  doctrines  revived  by  Wick- 

liffe,  380 

and  by  Huss,  383 
Gregory  VIII.  prevents  recognition 

of  clerical  marriage,  337 
Gregory  IX.  tries  to  repress  concu- 
binage in  Naples,  347 
Gregory  X.  deposes  Henry  of  Liege,  350 
Gregory  XIV.  tries  to  purify  the  con- 
fessional, 535 
Grey-Friars  of  Perth,  their  luxury,  517 
Grindal,  Archbishop  of  York,  Injunc- 
tions of,  505 
Grosseteste,  Robert,  Bishop  of  Lin- 
coln, 306 
Guala,  constitutions  of,  344 
Gualberto,  S.  Giovanni,  190 
Guarino    of  Modena,    his    ingenious 

expedient,  157 

Guastalla,  council  of,  in  1106,  258 

Guibert  de  Nogent,  his  benefice,  276 


Guiberto  of  Ravenna,  the  antipope,  251 

his  death  and  sanctity,  255 
Guido  di  Valate  becomes  Archbishop 

of  Milan,  219 

his  recantation,  224 

his  excommunication,  227 

his  resignation,  229 

Gunzo  the  Grammarian,  151 

Gwentian  code,  308 

Gyrovagi,  or  wandering  monks,  113 


HAARLEM,  synod  of,  in  1564,         523 
Hali  Meidenhad,  361 

Hamburg,  council  of,  in  1406,  350 

Hamilton,   John,  Archbishop  of  St. 

Andrews,  511 

Hamilton,  Catherine,  514 

Hanno  of  Cologne  earns  his  canoniza- 
tion, 210 
Hardouin,  Bishop  of  Anjou,  387 
Heliodorus  of  -Trica  introduces  celi- 
bacy, 91 
Hell,  modern  Roman  ideas  of,  563 
Heloise  and  Abelard,  283 
Henke  reprints  Calixtus  on  celibacy,  545 
Henricians,  the,  372 
Henry   II.,    St.,    and    servitude    of 

priests'  children,  159 

his  vow  of  continence,  182 

his  efforts  to  reform  the  clergy,      184 

Henry  III.  restores  the  papacy,  191 

Henry  IV.,  his  abduction  by  Hanno 

of  Cologne,  210 

revolt  of  his  son  Conrad,  231 

he  protects  the  married  clergy,      250 
condemns  clerical  marriage,  252 

quietly     protects     the     married 

clergy,  255 

revolt  of  his  son,  Henry  V.,  257 

Henry  Beauclerc  fines  the   married 

priests,  290 

urges   the  enforcement  of  celi- 
bacy, 290 
sells  licenses  to  marry,  294 
Henry  V.  persecutes  the  Lollards,        382 
Henry  VII.,    legislation    to   repress 

concubinage,  307 

Henry  VIII.  refuses  to  attend  coun- 
cil at  Mantua  in  1536,  439 
commences  suppression  of  monas- 
teries, 465 
his  quarrel  with  Rome,  467 
approves    the    "Beggars'    Peti- 
tion," 469 
excommunicated  by  Paul  III.,      471 
attacks  the  larger  houses,               472 
insists  upon  celibacy,  477 
uncertainty  as  to  his  views,            480 
refuses  clerical  marriage  in  1538,  481 
negotiates     with      Schmalcaldic 

League,  481 

procures  the  act  of  the  Six  Ar- 
ticles, 482 
his  death  in  1547,                           486 


586 


INDEX. 


Henry  III.   (of  France)   legitimates 

children  of  apostate  priests,  541 

Henry  of  Speyer  reproaches  Hilde- 

brand,  245 

Henry  III.,  Bishop  of  Liege,  349 

Henry  of  Huntingdon,  287 

Hepburn,  Bishop  of  Murray,  his  im- 
morality, 509 
Hereditary  tendencies  of  priesthood 

in  10th  century,  149 

Hereditary  transmission  of  benefices 

(see  Benefices). 
Heresies,  ascetic,  34 

medieval,  370-385 

strengthened  by  clerical  license,   346 
Heresy  stimulated  hy  clerical  excesses, 
acknowledged    by   the   legate 
Campeggi  in  1524,  421 

and  by  Bishop  of  Constance  in 

1567,  421 

by  Pius  V.  in  1567,  422,  524 

by  councils  of  Cologne  and  Augs- 
burg, 435-436 
by     Anthony,      Archbishop     of 

Prague,  in  1565,  531 

at  Synod  of  Constance  in  1609,  532 
by  Bishop  of  Antwerp  in  1610,  532 
by    Bishop    of    Bois-le-Duc    in 

1612,  532 

by  Synod  of  Osnabruck  in  1625,    532 
Heresy  worse  than  immorality,  209 

Heresy,    Anglican,   strengthened   by 

the  Marian  persecution,  499 

Heretics  not  to  be  cajoled  but  pun- 
ished, 453 
Herluca,  the  virgin,  248 
Hermann   von  Wied,  Archbishop  of 

Cologne,  438 

Heydeck,  Baron  of,  marries  a  nun,  425 
Hibernian  canons  of  8th  century,  164 
High  Commission,  court  of,  503 

Hilarion   introduces    monachism   in 

Syria,  102 

Hildebert  of  Le  Mans  tries  to  restore 

discipline,  278 

Hildebrand  (see  Gregory  VII.). 
Hildesheim.  synod  of,  in  1652,  534 

Hincmar  of  Rheims,  143 

Hof,  disgraceful  conduct  of  priests  at, 

in  1505,  419 

Holland,  monastic  discipline  in,  523 

Holy  orders  render  marriage  null,  328 
Honorius,  his  law  of  420,  54,  83 

he  persecutes  Jovinian,  72 

Honorius   I.    reproves    the   Scottish 

heresies,  166 

Honorius  II.  attempts  to  reform  the 

English  church,  293 

Honorius    III.    tries   to   reform   the 

Scottish  church,  315 

confirms  order  of  St.  James,  367 

Honorius  II.   (Antipope),  209 

Home's  Myrror  of  Justice,  305 

Hospitallers,  order  of,  365,  369 

suppressed  in  England,  475 


Hubert,  a  married  clerk  in  9th  cen- 
tury, 145 
Huesca,  council  of  in  598,  85 
Hugh,  Archbishop  of  Rouen,                 160 
Hugh  of  Grenoble,  asceticism  of,          238 
Hugh  of  Die,  his  efforts  to  enforce  celi- 
bacy in  France,                             269 
excommunicates  laymen  for  in- 
terference,                                      271 
Hugh,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  his  opin- 
ion of  the  clergy,                                   296 
Hugh  of  Rouen  deplores  the  laxity  of 

the  age,  331 

his  comparison  of  virginity,  331 

his  polemical  logic,  373 

Huguenot  churches,  the,  540 

accept  clerical  marriage,  540 

strictness  of  their  discipline,  540 

marriages  with  Catholics,  537 

legalization  of  their  children,        541 
marriage   of  apostate    Catholics 
forbidden,  542 

Humbert  of  Silva-Candida,  his  mis- 
sion to  Greece  in  1054,  199 
his  definition  of  heresy,  209 
Hungary,    celibacy   unknown    until 

1092,  261 

King  Coloman  enjoins  celibacy,    262 
delay  in  enforcing  it,  264 

condition  of  church  in  15th  cen- 
tury, 395 
movement  in   favor  of  priestly 
marriage  in  1866,                          564 
Huss,  John,                                              383 
Hussites,  the,                                             383 
reconciled  by  council  of  Bale.        384 
Hutten,   Ulric   von,    his   Epist.    Ob- 

scurorum  Virorum,  409 

Hyacinthe,     Pere,     his    sermons    in 

1866,  564 

Hyde,  council  of,  in  975,  176 

Hydroparastatae,  42 


TGNATIUS,  St.,  his  opinions,  25,  27 
JL  Ilchi,  Buddhist  monasteries  in,  24 
Ilerda,  council  of  in  523,  85 

Ilgenthal,  Abbey  of,  secularization  of,  426 
Illegitimates,  not  admitted  to  orders,  215 
Immorality  induced  by  asceticism,         39 
worse  than  marriage,  49 

more  pardonable  than  marriage,  209 
a    reason    for    permitting   mar- 
riage, 333 
returns  with  celibacy,  in  1557,      499 
Imperial  prerogative  over  papacy,        191 
Ina,  Dooms  of,                                           166 
Incest  caused  by  celibacy,  141,  292,  344, 

531,  538 
Independence   of  medieval    Spanish 

church,  316 

Indulgences,  sale  of,  complained  of,    390 

in  16th  century,  405 

Infanticide  common  in  nunneries  in 

9th  century,  141 


INDEX. 


587 


Influence  of  Manicheism  on  ortho- 
doxy, 43 
of  celibacy  on  civilization,  361 
Innocent  I.  enforces  Levitical  rule,  37 
condemns  Vigilantius,  75 
endeavors  to  enforce  the  canon,  80 
admits   validity  of  marriage    of 

nuns,  107 

his  decretals  disregarded  in  the 
East,  .  89 

Innocent  II.  at  the  council  of  Liege 

in  1131,  259 

Innocent  III.,  his  opinions  as  to  con- 
cubines, 284 
tries     to    reform    the     English 

church,  300 

separates     Bossaert     d'Avesnes 

from  his  wife,  336 

enforces  the  canons,  339 

tries    to    reform     the    Gallican 

church,  344 

approves  the  mendicant  orders,     377 
Innocent   IV.,   his    decision    in    the 

case  of  the  d'Avesnes,  336 

his  special  privilege  for  Livonia,    349 
and  Robert  Grosseteste,  357 

Innocent  VIII.,  his  vices,  359 

Insermente  clergy  of  1790,  548 

Intellectual  movement  of  16th  century,  402 
Interim,  the,  in  1548,  432 

Irenacus,  story  of  Marcus,  27 

Ireland,  celibacv  not  insisted  on  by 

St.  Patrick,  80 

strictness    of    monastic    institu- 
tions, 108 
monastic     character     of     early 

church,  164 

condition  of  medieval  church, 

309-313 

suppression  of  monasteries  in,       477 

Irregularities  of  asceticism,  39 

Irreverential  spirit  of  18th  century,    544 

Italy,  celibacy  obligatory  in  384,  65 

the  Leonistas,  69 

Heresy  of  Jovinian,  71 

celibacy  disregarded  in  Calabria,     80 

morals  of,  in  5th  century,  86 

St.  Benedict  of  Nursia,  114 

Monachism  under  Gregory  I.,       117 

demoralization  in  6th  century,      125 

reforms  of  Gregory  I.,  127 

of  Gregory  II.,  130 

Charlemagne    and    the    Roman 

clergy,  138 

the  Papacy  in  the  10th  century.    147 

Ratherius  of  Verona,  150,  154 

Atto  of  Vercelli,  150,  156 

.     Guarino  of  Modena  and  Alberic 

of  Marsico,  157 

Sylvester  II.,  162 

synod  of  Pavia  in  1022,  184 

condition  of  church  in  11th  cent.,  186 
San  Giovanni  Gualberto,  190 

Henry  III.  and  the  Papacy,  191 

St.  Peter  Damiani,  193 


Italy- 
Papal  efforts  to  reform  the  church,  198 
Damiani  and  Hildebrand,  201 

schism  of  the  Lombard  clergy,  208 
the  antipope  Cadalus,  209 

failure  of  the  reform,  214 

the  reform  in  Milan,  216-231 

the     Schismatics     of    Northern 

Italy,  232 

accession  of  Gregory  VII.,  234 

legislation  of  Urban  II.,  255 

council  of  Lateran  in  1123,  326 

in  1139,  328 

Gratian  on  the  Lateran  canons,  329 
clerical  marriage  in  Calabria  in 

12th  century,  333 

council  t)f  Lateran  in  1215,  340 

children  of  ecclesiastics  in  13th 

century,  346 

concubines     obtain     benefit     of 

clergy,  350 

morals  of  Rome  in  12th  century,  356 
the  papacy  under  John  XXIII.,  358 
Innocent  VIII.  and  Alexander 

VI.,  359 

the  mendicant  orders,  377 

venality  of  the  papal  court,  390 

Savonarola's  denunciations,  391 

condition  of  monachism,  393 

Nicholas  Tudeschi  and  Pius  II.,  398 
fifth  council  of  Lateran  in  1514,  422 
Paul  III.  attempts  a  reform,  441 

Pius  V.   and   the  courtesans  of 

Rome,  525 

St.   Charles   Borromeo   and  the 

Milanese,  526 

Italian    councils    from    1565    to 

1597,  528 

abuse  of  confessional,  535 

clergy  of  Rome  in  1853,  560 

tolerant  legislation,  civil  marri- 
ages allowed,  560 
Passaglia,  protest  of,                        561 
encyclical  of  1864,  561 
efforts  at  internal   reform   since 

1862,  562 

radical  measures  proposed,  562 

suppression  of  religious  corpora- 
tions in  1866,  563 
allocution  of  1866,  563 
Isidor,    St.,    of    Seville,    denounces 

wandering  monks,  118 

Isis,  vow  of  continence  by,  24 

Isidorian     forgeries,     relaxation     of 

canon  in,  139 

Ivo  of  Chartres,  his  decisions  on  the 
canons,  277 


JACOBINES,   numbers  of,   in   the 
East,  98 

James  IV.  of  Scotland,  protects  the 

Lollards,  508 

James  V.,  Parliament  of,  in  1512,        511 
James  VI.,  baptism  of,  513 


588 


INDEX. 


Janizaries,  celibacy  required  of,  19 

Jerome  (St.)  decries  marriage,  45 

he  denounces  the  Agapetse,  52 

he  denounces  disorders  of  church,  59 
he  refutes  the  Bonosiacs,  70 

he  assails  Jovinian,  72 

his  acquaintance  with  Buddhism,     73 
he  assails  Vigilantius,  75 

his  description  of  clerical  morals,     83 
Jerusalem,  synod  of,  26 

Jesus  Christ,  order  of,  368 

Jews,  asceticism  among,  22 

polygamy  among,  36 

John,  St.,  the  Evangelist,  his  celibacy,  25 
reproves  the  Nicolites,  26 

John  Chrysostom,  St.,  praise  of  vir- 
ginity, 91 
John  of  Jerusalem,  rule  of,                    105 
John  the  Almoner,  strictness  of,            127 
John    of    Crema,    his    English    ad- 
ventures,                                        293 
he  reforms  Scottish  church,            314 
John,  King,  forces  the  clergy  to  re- 
deem their  women,                        207-209 
John  XII.,  his  wickedness,                     148 
John  XIII.  condemns  sacerdotal  mar- 
riage in  967,                                    154 
orders  ejection  of  canons  of  Win- 
chester,                                           174 
John  XXII.  excommunicated  by  the 

Fraticelli,  378 

John  XXIII.,  character  of,  358 

John  of  Nicklaushausen,  397 

John    of   Leyden    introduces    poly- 
gamy, 430 
Jonas,  Justus,  on  Luther's  marriage,  418 
Joseph  II.  inclines  to  permit  clerical 

marriage,  545 

Jovian,  law  of,  in  364,  60,  106 

Jovinian,  heresy  of,  71 

Juan  de  Ludegna  on  clerical  marriage 

at  council  of  Trent,  452 

Judhael  of  Dol,  primate  of  Britanny,  273 
Julian  Cassianus,  34 

Julius  III.  convokes  council  of  Trent 

in  1551,  440 

his  Bull  reconciling  England,        496 
Julius,  Bishop  of  Wurzburg,  rebukes 

clerical  marriage  in  1584,  530 

Juno,  priestesses  of,  24 

Justices  of  peace,  control  over  clerical 

marriage  confided  to,  502 

Justification  by  faith,  doctrine  of,  in 

Scotland,  514 

Justin  Martyr,  testimony  of,  28 

Justinian,  legislation  of,  92 

regulates  monachism,  111 


KAISERWERTH,  Deaconesses  of,  566 
Kirkham,  Walter,  of  Durham, 
forbids  clerical  marriage  in  1255,     304 
Knights,  monastic  orders  of,  365-369 

Knox,  his  wonder  at  monastic  luxury,   517 
his  Confession  of  Faith,  520 


Kokkius,  Dr.,  his  address  to  council 

of  Freysingen,  389 

Kopp,  Leonhard,  liberates  nuns,  417 

Kyle,  Lollards  of,  in  1494,  508 


LACTANTIUS,  his  anti-ascetic  spirit,  41 
he  denounces  the  hermits,         102 
Laillier,  Jean,  heresies  of,  400 

Laity  appealed  to  by  Hildebrand,         244 
Laity  better  than  the  clergy,        173,  279, 
_  296,  353,  355,  386,  422,  448,  511,  524 
Laity  corrupted  by  the  clergy, 

asserted  by  Raoul  of  Poitiers,       279 

by  Alexander  IV.  and  others,  353 

by  Gerson,  355 

by  Nicholas  de  Clemangis,      386 

by  Pius  V.  in  1567,  422 

Lanciski,  synod  of,  in  1197,  264 

Landolfo  Cotta,  218 

he  rouses  the  Milanese,  221 

his  death  and  canonization,  225 

Lands,  church,   not   restored   under 

Queen  Mary,  496 

Lanfranc  tries  to  reform  the  English 

church,  286 

Langdon,  Abbot  of,  his  misadventure,  468 
Langlande,  Robert,  on  the  vices  of 

the  church,  462 

Lanzo  of  Milan,  *  218 

Laodicea,  council  of,  100 

Lateran,  first  council  of,  in  1123,        '  326 
second  council  of,  in  1139,  328 

fourth  council  of,  in  1215,  340 

fifth  council  of,  1514-16,  420 

Latin  church,  influence  of,  17 

Lausanne,  clergy  of,  refuse  to  be  re- 
formed, 352 
League  of  Schmalcalden,                        429 
Leibnitz  negotiates  with  Bossuet,  544 
Leighton,    Dr.,    .and    the    Abbot   of 

Langdon,  468 

Leith,  Articles  of,  520 

Legislation  of  kingdom  of  Italy,  560 

Le  Mans,  Bishop  of,  a  son  of  a  priest,  214 
Lenity  shown  to  prelates,  206 

Legitimation,  letters  of,  in  Scotland,  514 
Leo  the  Isaurian  persecutes  the  monks,  96 
Leo  and  Anthemius  confine  monks  to 

their  convents,  110 

Leo  the  Philosopher,  legislation  of,        93 
on  monachism,  112 

Leo  I.  endeavors  to  enforce  the  canon,     79 
his  decision  as  to  concubines,         205 
Leo  III.  dispenses  St.  Swithin,  170 

Leo  VII.  in  938  commands  sacerdotal 

celibacy,  152 

Leo  IX.,  1«5 

Leo  X.    excommunicates   Luther   in 

1420,  410 

his  efforts  at  reform  in  1514-16,    420 

Leon,  independence  of  church  of,         316 

council  of,  in  1114,  322 

Leonistw,  69 

Leptines,  synod  of,  in  743,  134 


INDEX 


589 


Letitia,  Madame,  patroness  of  Sisters 

of  Charity,  567 

Levitical  rule  applied  to  clergy,  31,  37,  49 

Libyan  bishops  married  in  7th  century,  95 

Licenses  to  sin,  first  allusion,  in  1080,   271 

common  in  England  in  1108,  292 

sold  by  Henry  I.  in  1129,  294 

deprecated  by  Innocent  III.  in 

1212,  \  345 

forbidden  by  Lateran  council  in 

1215,  340 

prohibited  by  council  of  Bale,       389 

in  Hungary  in  15th  century,  395 

reproved  by  Leo  X.  in  1516,  420 

universal  in  1522,  422 

in  Cologne  in  1549,  445 

Licentiousness  worse  than  marriage,      49 

Liege,  Manicheism  at,  in  1025,  216 

heretics  in,  in  1144,  372 

council  of,  in  1131,  259,  328 

in  1548,  445,  448 

Lillebonne,  council  of,  in  1080,  270 

Limitation  on  vows  in  France,  567 

Lindet,   Bishop  of  Evreux,   married 

in  1792,  549 

Link,  Wenceslas,  married  in  1523,       414 
Lisieux,  synod  of,  in  1055,  270 

story  of  a  bishop  of,  284 

Litchfield,  Bishop  of,  married,  286 

Literature,  significance  of  popular, 

354,  539 
Liturgy,  Anglican,  revolt  occasioned 

by,  489 

Livings  refused  to  celibates,  449 

Livonia,  children  of  clerks  eligible  to 

orders  in,  349 

Loch  Leven,  Culdees  of,  ejected,  315 

Lodi,  Damiani  barely  escapes  at,  211 

Lolhard,  Walter,  379 

Lollards,  the,  381 

of  Kyle  in  1494,  508 

Lombard  married  clergy  sustain  Ca- 

dalus,  210 

Lombardy,  troubles  in,  from  clerical 

marriage,  219 

London,    Dr.,    and    the    Abbess    of 

Chepstow,  474 

London,  council  of,  in  1075,  286 

in  1102,  287 

in  1108,  291 

in  1126,  293 

in  1129,  294 

in  1200,  301 

in  1268,  305 

supposititious  council  of,  in  712,    167 
Lorraine,  Cardinal  of,  tries  to  reform 

his  clergy,  537 

assents  to  clerical  marriage,  450 

Louis-le-Debonnaire  denounces  wan- 
dering monks,  119 
his  legislation,  139 
Louis-le-Gros  tries  to  restrict  clerical 

marriage,  284 

Louis  IX.,  his   decision   in   case  of 
d'Avesnes,  336 


Louvain,  synod  of,  in  1574,  534 

Lovictz,  synod  of,  in  1556,  457 

Loyola  (Ignatius),  reforms  Spanish 

priesthood,  .  438 

Luanus,  of  Banchor,  165 

Lucca,  troubles  in,  from  1051  to  1081,  232 
Lucius     II.      condemns     hereditary 

priesthood,  295 

Lucius  III.  on  sacraments  of  sinful 

priests,  204 

charter  to  the  church  of  Paris,      334 

confirms  privileges  of  Templars,    366 

rejects  the  Waldenses,  i        375 

Lunden,    Archbishop   of,    appeals  to 

Innocent  III.,  264 

Lupus  of  Troyes,  84 

Luther,  not  the  cause  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, 406 
at  first  neglects  celibacy,  409 
his    slow   progress   in    his    early 

movements,  410 

inclined  to  oppose  clerical  mar- 
riage in  1521,  412 
denounces  monachism  in  1522,       413 
authorizes  clerical  marriage,  414 
marries  in  1525,                                418 
his  views  on  matrimony,  418 
encourages  Albert  of  Branden- 
burg,                                             426 
denounces  the  Anabaptists,            430 
his  controversy  with  More,  462 
Lutheran     colleges,     popularity     of, 

arising  from  clerical  marriage,  450 

Lutheranism  established  in  1555,  434 

Lutherans    gradually    adopt   clerical 

marriage,  413 

accused  of  licentiousness,  415 

refuse     to     attend     council     of 

Mantua  in  1536,  439 

hold  aloof  from  council  of  Trent,  440 

forced  to  attend  council  of  Trent 

in  1551,  441 

Lyne,  Mr.,  or  Brother  Ignatius,  565 

Lyons,  council  of,  in  583,  85 

in  1528,  437 

Huguenot  synod  of,  in  1563,  541 

influence  of  the  Papacy  on,  356 


MACEDONIA,    compulsory  celi- 
bacy in,  91 
Macliavus  of  Britanny,  123 
Macon,  first  council  of,  in  581,  85 
Magdeburg    Centuriators,    suppositi- 
tious council  reported  by,  167 
Magdeburg,  council  of,  in  1403,  354 
Mahue,  trial  of,  in  1793,  550 
Maillard,  Olivier,  392 
Mainz,  annates  of,  405 
assembly  of,  in  1085,  252 
council  of,  in  888,     '  141 
in  1049,  197 
in  1075,  243 
in  1225,  347 
in  1261,  348,  377 


590 


INDEX 


Mainz — 

council  of,  in  1527,  415 

in  1549,  446 

Majorian  regulates  monastic  vows,        108 
Malachi     (St.)     reforms     the     Irish 

church,-  310 

Malatesta,   Carlo,   endeavors  to  fine 

priestly  concubines,  351 

Mallet,  Abbe,  case  of,  559 

Malta,  Knights  of,  365,  369 

suppressed  in  England,  475 

Manasses  of  Rheims  tries  to  reform 

the  Flemish  clergy,  275 

Mancio  of   Chalons   does   not  know 

what  to  do  with  married  priest,         146 
Manes,  42 

Manfredonia,  council  of,  in  1567,         528 
Manicheans  of  Bosnia,  371 

Manicheism,  42 

revived  in  11th  century,  216 

Manichean  tendencies  of  the  Fathers,     45 
in  13th  century,  361 

attacked  by  St.  Bernard,        343 
Manigold,  Count  of  Veringen,  248 

Mantua,  council  of,  in  1053,  198 

in  1067,  210 

council  of  Trent  convened  there 
in  1536,  394 

Manu,  ascetic  laws  of,  22 

Mapes,  Walter,  satirical  poems,  298 

Marcion,  34 

Marcus  the  Magician,  27 

Margaret  of  Flanders,  case  of,  336 

Margaret  of  Parma  hesitates  to  re- 
ceive council  of  Trent,  523 
Maria  della  Scala,  S.,  canons  of,           526 
Marian  order  of  knights,                        369 
Marillac,  Ch.  de,  on  French  clergy 

in  1560,  537 

Marino,  miracles  wrought  by,  187 

Marisco,  Adam  de,  306 

Marital  rights,  Luther's  views  on,        418 
Marozia,  147 

Marriage  of  Apostles,  25 

Marriage,  disapproval  of,  condemned 

by  early  church,  46 

comparative  merit  of,  44,  45,  331,  361 
Marriage  of  monks  and  nuns  in  4th 

century,  101 

held  binding  in  early  church,        106 

only  a  matter  of  penance,  108 

deprecated  by  Gelasius  I.,  114 

forbidden  by  Gregory  I.,  117 

by  Clotair  II.,  118 

in  567,  123 

by  Recared  I.,  124 

in  Italy,  8th  century,  130 

in  Bavaria,  8th  century,  138 

in  12th  century,  339 

in  13th  century,  300 

in  14th  century,  352 

in  15th  century,  393 

under  French  Revolution,  551 

Marriage,     clerical,     permitted     in 

primitive  church,  27 


Marriage,  clerical — 

less    objectionable    than    licen- 
tiousness in  4th  century,  49 
in  11th  century  more  objection- 
able than  licentiousness,              209 
common  in  8th  century,                   133 
in  10th  century,                         148 
universal  in  Saxon  England,          180 
in  11th  century,      187,  219,  239, 
269,  287,  313,  317 
in  12th  century,     259,  264,  281,  293, 
314,  320 
in  13th  century,       264,  265,  299,  323 
assumed  to  be  a  heresy,  in  1 1th 

century,  209 

so  pronounced  by  council  of 

Trent,  454 

practised  in  16th  century,      433,  457 

permitted  by  Paul  III.,  433 

requested  by  German  princes, 

449,  456 
continued  after  council  of  Trent,  524 
efforts  to  abolish  it  from  1569  to 

1628,  529 

definitely  abandoned,  543 

proposed  by  Alexander  III.,  337 

by  SigismundIL,  398 

by  Pius  II.,  399 

by  Erasmus,  423 

by  the  German  Princes,  447,  458 

by  Bossuet  and  Du  Pin,  544 

by  Joseph  II.,  545 

among  the  Lutherans  in  1521,       411 

in  England  in  1530,  478 

doubts  about  it  in  1537,  480 

a  capital  crime  under  the   Six 

Articles,  483 

recognized     in     Convocation    of 

1547,  487 

granted  by  Parliament  in  1549,     488 
resisted  by  the  people,  489 

encouraged    by    Parliament    in 

1552,  491 

forbidden  by  Parliament  in  1553,  492 
restored  under  Elizabeth,  501 

emphasized  in  39  Articles,  503 

a    point   of   faith    in    Anglican 

church,  504 

disrepute  of,  in  Anglican  church,  505 
a  matter  of  course  in  Scottish 

reformation,  514 

in  the  French  Revolution,  548 

permitted  by  constitution  of  1791,  549 
it  becomes  a  test  of  civisme,  550 

numbers  who  embraced  it,  552 

laws  favoring  it,  553 

condemned  by  the  constitutional 

bishops,  553 

civil,  permitted  under  Concordat 

of  1801,  554 

opinion  of  Portalis,  555 

prohibited  by  Napoleon  in  1807,  556 
legal  under  the  Restoration,  556 

cases  in  1861  and  1864,  557 

legalized  in  Italy,  560 


INDEX. 


591 


Marriage,  clerical — 

movements  to  promote  it,  562 

in  Greek  church,  89 

admitted  by  Rome,  339-340 

Marriage  not  dissolved  by  monastic 

vows  in  6th  century,  118 

in  11th  century,  215 

dissolved  by  vows  and  orders  in 

12th  century,  326 

of  apostate  priests  forbidden,         542 
the  only  remedy  for  clerical  vices 
admitted     by    Alexander 
III.,  337 

by  Sigismund  II.,  398 

by  Eugenius  IV.,  367 

by  Alexander  VI.,  368 

by  Erasmus,  423 

by  Emp.  Ferdinand,  447 

by  Maximilian  II.,  458 

articles  on,  at  council  of  Trent,     451 
not  practised  in  Ireland,  309 

Marriage-tie,   weakness    of,   in    11th 

century,  ]89 

Marriages,    second,    commanded    by 

St.  Paul,  101 

objected  to  by  heretics,  35 

inadmissible  in  clerks,  36 

objectionable  in  laymen,  36 

common  with  clerks  of  10th 

century,  151 

frequent  in  11th  century,        211 

not  allowed  in  Milan,  219 

Married  clergy  universal  in  Europe,     187 

they  sustain  the  Antipope  Cada- 

lus,  210 

rejection  of    their  ministrations 

by  Nicholas  II.,  203 

renewed  by  Hildebrand,  238 

and  by  Innocent  II.,  259 

reversed  by  Lucius  III.,  204 

ordered  by  council  of  Lon- 
don in  1102,  288 
conflicting  views  of  Anselm 
and  Paschal  II.,  289 
Married  priests,  persecution  of,  under 

Henry  VIII.,  483 

separated     under     act     of     Six 

Articles,  484 

proceedings  against,  in  1553#         493 

ejection  of,  in  1554,  495 

under  Queen  Mary,  497 

forbidden  to  abandon  the  church,  498 

ejected  from  the  church,  498  . 

"Marthas"  of  the  Franciscans,  354 

Martin,  St.,  of  Tours,  his  estimate  of 

marriage,  45 

Martin,  St.,   of  Leon,    explains   the 

plagues  of  Egypt,  373 

Martin  V.  denounces  the  Begghards,  379 
tries  to  reform  the  church,  387 

Martin  of  Camin  tries  to  reform  his 

clergy,  396 

Martin,    an   aged    priest,    forced    to 

marry,  551 

Martin,  case  of,  in  1817,  556 


Marullus,  epitaph  on  Innocent  VIII.,  359 
Mary,  Virgin,   "  intemerata  virgini- 

tas"  of,  70 

Mary,  St.,  of  Egypt,  103 

Mary,  Queen,  her  accession,  in  1553,  492 
proceedings      against      married 

priests,  493 

her  death  in  1558,  499 

Mary  Queen  of  Scots  and  the  Arch- 
bishop of  St.  Andrews,  513 
Mary  of  Guise,  temporizing  policy  in 

Scotland,  515 

Mass  of  sinful  priests  to  be  rejected, 

203,  238,  259,  288 
Massieu,  Bishop  of  Beauvais,  married 

in  1792,  549 

Materialism  of  Mosaic  Dispensation,     21 
Matilda,     the     Countess,     represses 

clerical  marriage,  232 

Matrimony,  articles  on,  at  council  of 

Trent,  451 

Maud  of  Ramsbury,  295 

Mauger  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  161 

Maultrot:s  answer  to  Gaudin,  546 

Maurilio  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  161 

Maximilian  I.  warned  against  Rome 

in  1510,  403 

Maximilian   II.    urges   Pius   IV.    to 

grant  clerical  marriage,  460 

Meaux,  Bishop  of,  his  heresies,  382 

Mechlin,  synod  of,  receives  council 

of  Trent,  524 

synods  of,  in  1570,  1607,  534 

abuse  of  absolution  in,  536 

Medicine    not    to    be    practised    by 

ecclesiastics,  238 

Medievalism  of  Latin  church,  563 

in  Anglican  church,  564 

Meinhard  of  Treves,   his   indiscreet 

zeal,  260 

Melancthon   and    the    Confession    of 

Augsburg,  427 

and  Dr.  Eck,  in  1541,  431 

urges    Henry    VIII.    to    grant 

clerical  marriage,  482 

horror   at   the    act   of    the    Six 
Articles,  485 

Melchior  of  Wurzburg  deplores  cor- 
ruption of  church,  446 
Melfi,  council  of,  in  1059,                       205 
in  1089,                                      255 
in  1597,                                   •  528 
Men  of  Intelligence,                                385 
Mendelsham,  Vicar  of,  marriage  of,     480 
Mendicant  orders,  foundation  of,          377 
Metz,  council  of,  in  888,                          141 
in  1604  and  1610,                      345 
Milan,  councils  of,  in  1565  and  1582,  528 
Milan  in  1045,                                            216 
Milanese  clergy,  marriage  universal 

among,  219 

their  persecutions,  222 

they  submit  to  Damiani,  223 

they  join  the  Antipope  Cadalus,    225 
persecution  of,  228 


592 


INDEX 


Milanese  clergy — 

excommunicated  in  1074,  229 

they  elect  Tedaldo  archbishop  in 

1075,  230 

they  submit  to  Rome  in  1093,        231 
troubles  of  St.  Charles  Borromeo 
with,  526 

Military  bishops  of   10th   and    11th 

centuries,  157,  187 

orders,  the  365-369 

Mill,  Walter,  martyrdom  of,  in  1558,  518 

Milo  of  Rheims  and  Treves,  132 

maintains  his  position  till  752,       136 

Ministrations  of  sinful  priests  to  be 

rejected,  203,  238,  259,  288 

Minucius  Felix,  testimony  of,  28 

Miracles   in  favor  of  priestly  conti- 
nence, 176 
wrought  by  married  clerks,  186 
concerning  married  priests.    248,  280 
false,                                                     474 
Mission-work,  marriage   not  incom- 
patible with,                                   98,  558 
Mixed   courts  for   trial  of  married 

priests,  271 

Modena,  troubles  in  11th  century,        233 
Monastic  vows  declared  irrevocable,     117 
render  marriage  null,  328 

Monastic  character  of  Irish  church,     311 
Monasticism,  origin  and  rise  of,  100 

not  originally  indelible,  101 

repressed  by  Valens,  59 

persecuted  by  Iconoclastic  empe- 
rors, 96 
refused  to  clerks  in  381,  103 
restricted  to  deserts  in  390,  111 
early  irregularities  of,  59,  105,  113 
regulated  by  council  of  Chalce- 

don  in  451,  110 

scandals  of,  in  9th  century,  140 

in  10th  century,  158 

in  Saxon  England,  168,  172,  182 
in  12th  century,  278,  296,  322 
in  13th  and  14th  centuries, 

351,  354,  377 

in  15th  century,       389,  390,  391 

in  16th  century,       407,  468,  523 

its  influence  on  civilization,  361 

Erasmus's  satires  on,  407 

flourishing  condition  of,  in  1860,  566 

modern  character  of,  566 

Monasteries,  Buddhist,  24 

Saxon,  suppression  of  the,     412,  426 

English,  visitation  of  the,  in  1535,  467 

final  suppression  of,  475 

their     lands     not     restored 

under  Mary,  496 

Irish,  suppressed,  477 

Scottish,  destruction  of,  517 

secularization  of,  in  Austria,  546 

suppression  of,  in  France,  547 

suppressed  in  Italy  in  1866,  563 

Monks,  marriage  of  (see  Marriage). 

vagabond,  105,  110 

Eastern,  their  turbulence,  109 


Monks  confined  to  their  convents  in 

5th  century,  110 

not  admitted  without  consent  of 
wives,  215 

Monluc  of  Valence,  his   description 

of  French  clergy,  437 

his  marriage,  541 

Montanist  heresy,  -28,  35,  37 

Monte  Casino,  founded  by  St.  Bene- 
dict, 115 
Carloman  enters  it,  137 
preserved  in  1866,                             563 
Morales  imitates  Origen,  38 
Morality,  artificial  standard  of,             283 
rigid,  of  Scottish  reformers,           518 
Morals,  good,  a  reason  for  separating 

married  clerks,  333 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  463 

Morton,  Archbishop,  orders  a  visita- 
tion, 392 
Mosaic  Dispensation,  materialism  of,     21 
Mucius,  inhuman  obedience  exacted 

of,  105 

Mulier  subintroducta,  52 

Muncer  the  Anabaptist,  429 

Munster,  council  of,  in  1279,  536 

in  1652,  533 

Mutiles  de  Russie,  38 

Mynchens,  179 


NAMUR,  synods  of,  in  1604,  1639,  534 
in  1698,  536 

in  1742,  537 

Nantes,  council  of,  in  895,  141 

Edict  of,  541 

Naples,  children  of  clerks  declared 

heritable  in,  346 

Gregory  IX.    tries    to    suppress 

concubinage  in,  347 

privileges  of  priestly  concubines 

in,  350 

council  of,  in  1576,  528 

Napoleon  and  the  Concordat  of  1801,  554 

prohibits    clerical    marriage    in 

1807,  556 

Narbonne,  council  of,  in  1551,  437 

in  1609,  539 

National  ^Convention,  the,  legislates 

against  celibacy,  553 

Navarre  dependent  on  the  Carlovin- 

gians,  316 

Neocaesarea,  council  of,  in  314,  48 

Neo-Platonic  Philosophy,  41 

Nerzim,  a  Turkish  saint,  22 

Nestorians,  the,  97 

Netherlands,     delay     in     receiving 

council  of  Trent,  523 

Neustria,  commencement  of  reform  in,  135 

Nicaea,  first  council  of,  in  325,  50 

quoted  by  Julius  of  Wurzburg  in 

1584,  530 

Nicene  canon,  meaning  of,  51 

admitted    as    impracticable    in 

1536,  438 


INDEX 


593 


Nicene  canon — 

imitated  in  Anglican  church,         505 
abandoned  in  17th  century,  534 

Nicander  Nucius  on  English  monas- 
teries, 468,  474 
Nicetas   Pectoratus,   his  controversy 

with  Humbert,  199 

Nicholas  the  Deacon,  story  of,  26 

Nicholas  I.  connives  at  priestly  mar- 
riage, 145 
on  sacraments  of  sinful  priests,     203 
Nicholas  II.,                                            201 
urges  celibacy  in  France,  268 
Nicholas  V.   tries  to  repress  concu- 
binage, 390 
Nicholas  de  Clemangis,                            386 
Nicolites,  26 
married    clergy   stigmatized   as, 
in  1061,                                            210 
Nicolitan  clergy  organize   resistance 

to  Rome,  208 

Nicolitisrn  condemned  by  the  coun- 
cil of  Piacenza  in  1095,  232 
Nigel  Bishop  of  Ely,  295 
Niklaushausen,  John  of,  397 
Nimptschen,  escape  of  nuns  from,  417 
Nismes,  church  of,  renews  constitu- 
tion of  Guala,  344 
Nitrian  monks,  their  excesses  under 

Cyril,  119 

Nobla  Leyczon,  the,  375 

Nomocanon  of  Photius,  93 

Nordhausen,  council  of,  in  1105,  257 

Norfolk,  Duke  of,  lays  the  Six  Articles 

before  Parliament,  483 

Norman  Conquest  caused  by  clerical 

sins,  183 

Norman  England,  285-308 

Norman    influence    on    Edward   the 

Confessor,  181 

Normandy,  clergy  refuse  to  part  with 

their  wives  in  1049,  197 

resistance  in  1072  to  enforcement 

of  celibacy,  270 

marriage  persisted  in,  272 

Northumbrian  Priests,  laws  of,  173 

Novatus,  case  of,  30 

Novitiate,    short,  required    of  early 

monks,  "    104 

year  of,  under  rule  of  Benedict,    116 
Nuns,  marriage  of  (see  Marriage). 
first  subjected  to  settled  discip- 
line, 106 
marriage    of,    binding    in    early 

church,  106 

tests  of  chastity  applied  to,  306 

they   postpone  their  vows  until 

old  age,  331 

their  liberation  in  1523,  417 

Nunneries,   theatrical    performances 

in,  446 

Niirnberg,  Diet  of,  demands  a  gene- 
ral council  in  1522,  416 
desires  to  enforce  the  canons  in 
1523,  417 

38 


Niirnberg,  Diet  of — 

in  1522,  complaints  of,  422 

Augustinians     of,     disband     in 

1524,  418 

the  Senate  of,  and  the  mendicant 
orders  in  1524,  423 

Nursia,  asceticism  of  priest  of,  128 


OATH  of  the  military  orders,  365 

Obedience  exacted  of  Egyptian 
monks,  105 

Odo  of  Canterbury,   constitutions  of 

in  943,  171 

Odo  of  Toul  deprecates  marriage  of 

monks,  339 

Officials,  venality  of,    271,  292,  297,  307, 
340,  345,  389,   390,   395,  420,  422,  445 
Ogilby,  Marion,  511 

Olmutz,  council  of,  in  1342,  348 

synod  of,  in  1591,  530 

Oppression  of  the  Church   by   early 

Carlovingians,  130 

Orange,  first  council  of  in  441,  79 

Order  of  widows  in  early  church,  100 

Orders,  holy,  not  conferred  on  ille- 
gitimates, 215 
render  marriage  null,  328 
Orders,  military,                                365-369 
Oriesis,  St.,  Rule  of,  103 
Origen,  38 
Origenians,  Russian,  38 
Orleans,  third  council  of,  71 
councils  of  in  511,  533,  538,  541, 

and  549,  85 

Manicheism  at,  in  1023,  216 

States  of,  in  1560,  537 

Orthodoxy  influenced  by  Manicheism,    43 
Orzechowski,  Stanislas,  457 

Osber,  council  of,  in  1062,  210 

Osiander,  his  heretical  notions  of  the 

Virgin,  71 

Osius  of  Cordova,  48 

Osnabruck,  synod  of,  in  1625,  532 

in  1628,  531,  533 

Ossory,  council  of,  in  1320,  313 

Oswald,  St.,  of  Worcester,  174 

Otfrid  of  Watten,  persecution  of,  274 

Othlo,  his  account  of  his  temptations,   196 
Otho   the     Great    legislates    against 

children  of  priests,  152 

Otho  of  Constance,  his  troubles,  240 

Otto,  Cardinal,  constitutions  of,  301 

Ottoboni,  constitutions  of,  305 

Oxford,  council  of,  in  1222,  301 

articles  of  reformation  in  1414,       353 
bishopric  of,  established  in  1541,    476 


PACHOMIUS,  ST.,  rule  of,  103 

Pacification,  French  edicts  of, 
in  1576  and  1577,  541 

Paderborn,  resistance  of  monks  of,       351 
synod  of,  in  1548,  446 

Pagan  priests,  asceticism  of,       24,  28,  66 


594 


INDEX 


Palenoia,  council  of,  in  1129,  322 

in  1322,  323 

in  1388,  324 

Papacy  in  10th  century,  147 

degradation  of,  in  11th  century,    186 

throws  off  subjection  to  empire 

in  1058,  201 

scandals  of  the,  148,  356-359 

Papal  court,  venality  of,  390 

dispensations     to     children     of 

priests,  438,  513,  524 

jurisdiction  favorable  to  concu- 
binage, 142 
power  to  dispense  with  celibacy,   399 
Paphnutius,  story  of,  54 
Paramour,  evidence  of  refused,    144,  305 
Paregorius,  case  of,                                    89 
Paris,  council  of,  in  615,                         118 
in  1074,                                                269 
in  1212,                                               345 
in  1528,                                               436 
Huguenot  synod  of,  in  1559,           540 
Parish  priests  compelled  to  take  con- 
cubines,                               324,  355,  386 
Parker,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
advocates  clerical  marriage  in 
1548,                                              488 
his  estimate  of  ejected  priests,       495 
induces  Elizabeth  to  grant  cleri- 
cal marriage,                                  501 
insulted  by  Elizabeth  on  account 
of  his  marriage,                             504 
Parliament,  Scottish,  in  1542  urges  a 

reform  in  the  church,  511 

Parma,  troubles  in,  233 

Paschal   II.    admits    the   repentant 

schismatics,  258 

urges  celibacy  in  Denmark,  265 

denounces  the  Breton  church,       273 
on  the   sacraments  of    unchaste 

priests,  289 

admits     children    of   clergy    to 

orders,  290 

urges  reform  of  Spanish  church,  319 
Passaglia,  Father,  protest  of,  561 

Passau,  council  of,  in  1284,  348 

Transaction  of,  in  1552,  434 

Pataria,  origin  of  the  term  Paterins,    221 
Paterins,  or  Albigenses,  217,  370 

Paterins,  papal  party  known  as, 

221,  250 
Patrick,  St.,  his  classification  of  vir- 
ginity, 44 
does  not  enforce  celibacy,  80 
orders    separation    of     married 

nuns,  108 

tendencies  of  his  institutions,        164 
Paul,  St.,  his  marriage,  25 

his  model  bishop,  36 

he    countenances    second    mar- 
riages, 101 
Paul  of  Samosata,  40 
Paul  the  Thebrcan  the  first  hermit,       102 
Paul  III.  prevents  a  compromise  with 
the  Lutherans  in  1541,                        431 


Paul   III.    grants   dispensations   for 

clerical  marriage,  433 

convokes    council  at    Trent  in 

1542,  440 

attempts  a  reform  in  1536,  441 

excommunicates  Henry  VIII.,      471 
Paul  IV.   puts  his  "Consilium"  in 

the  Index,  442 

Pauperism  caused  by  suppression  of 

monasteries  in  England  476 

in  Scotland  516 

Paupers  the   only  monks   in   Saxon 

England,  173 

Pavia,  council  of,  in  1022,  184 

in  1076,  231 

Payne,  Peter,  382 

Peckham.  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  305 
Pelagius  I.  refuses  ordination  of  mar- 
ried bishops,  126 
Pelagius  II.,  laxity  permitted  by,  125 
Pelayo  S.  de  Antealtaria,  abbey  of,  322 
Pelayo,  Alvarez,  Bishop  of  Silva,  324 
Penitential  of  10th  century,  161 
Penitents,  female,  to  confess  only  in 

church,  535 

Pepin-le-Bref  commences  a  reform,      135 
prosecutes  it  vigorously,  137 

Perplexity    caused     by     conflicting 

canons,  335 

Persecution  of  Manicheans,  42 

of  monks  by  Valens,  59,  101 

of  married  priests  by  the  people,  246 

by  St.  Anselm,  288 

under  Henry  VIII. ,  483 

under  Queen  Mary,  497 

Scottish,  implacability  of,  519 

Perigord,  Manicheism  in,  in  1147,        216 

Peres  de  la  Foi,  567 

Perth,  monasteries  sacked  in,  517 

Peter,  St.,  his  marriage,  25 

Peter,  Cardinal,  urged  to  reform  the 

clergy,  21 3 

Peter  the  Venerable,  his  miraculous 

stories,  280 

he  refutes  the  Petrobrusians,  372 

Peter  de  Vinea,  his  satire  on  clerical 

venality,  298 

Peter   Comestor   deprecates   clerical 

celibacy,  338 

Peter  Waldo,  374 

Peter  d'Ailly  complains  of  organized 

concubinage,  355 

Peterboro',  Abbot  of,  his  liberality,     471 
Petrarch,    his    description    of   papal 

court,  357 

Petrobrusians,  the,  372 

Peutwitz,  escape  of  nuns  from,  in  1523,  417 
Pfaffen-kind,  349 

Piacenza,  council  of,  in  1095,  231 

troubles  in,  233 

Pibo  of  Toul,  his  inquiries  of  Urban 

II.,  256 

Pictish  church,  asceticism  of,  165 

Piedmontese    married    clergy,    high 
character  of,  212 


INDEX. 


595 


Pier -Leone,  his  immorality,  356 

Piers  Ploughman,  Vision  of,  462 

Pilgrimage  of  Grace,  the  472 

Pinytus  of  Gnosus,  35 

Pisa,  council  of,  in  1511,  '       405 

Pistoia,  troubles  in,  233 

Pius  II.   recommends  abrogation  of 

celibacy,  399 

Pius  IV.  convokes  council  of  Trent 

in  1562,  441 

grants  dispensation  of  marriage 

to  Orzechowski,  458 

refuses  to  grant  clerical  marriage,  461 

promulgates  the  council  of  Trent,  522 

tries  to  purify  the  confessional,      535 

Pius  V.,  his  opinion  of  clerical  morals 

in  1567,  422,  524 

reforms  attempted  by,  524 

supports  St.  Charles  Borromeo,     527 
Pius  IX.  condemns  error  concerning 

clerical  marriage,  330 

his  virtuous  character,  560 

his  Encyclical  of  1864,  561 

his  Allocution  of  1866,  563 

his  efforts   to  advance  monasti- 
cism,  566 

Pharisees,  ascetic  vows  of,  22  | 

Philibert,  Bishop  of  Sedan,  in  1793,    552  ! 
Philip,  St.,  his  marriage,  26  ; 

Philip  of  Savoy,  his  career,  304  \ 

Philip     of     Burgundy,     Bishop     of 

Utrecht,  420 

Philip   II.    urges    the    retention    of 

celibacy,  461 

receives  the  council  of  Trent,        522 

supports  St.  Charles  Borromeo,      527 

Photinus  shares  the  Bonosiac  heresy,     70 

Photius,  his  Nomocanon,  .    92 

Poems,  satirical,  on  reform  of  married 

priests,  303 

Poissy,  colloquy  of,  in  1561,  537 

Poitiers,  council  of,  in  1000,  161 

in  1078,  269 

edict  of,  in  1577,  541 

Huguenot  synod  of,  in  1560,  537 

Poland,  clerical  celibacy  introduced,    264 

reception  of  council  of  Trent  in,  522 

clerical  marriage  in  1577,  530 

Pole,  Cardinal,  installed  as  legate,       496 

his  Legatine  Constitutions,  497 

his  death,  499 

Political  use  made  of  monachism,         110 

Polycarp  alludes  to  clerical  marriage,     27 

Polygamy  among  the  Jews,  36 

of  Saxon  clergy,  173,  178 

of  clergy  in  11th  century,  188 

caused  by  celibacy  in  12th  cent.,  260 

Pomerania,  morals  of  clergy  in  15th 

century,  395 

Pomeranius  on  Luther's  marriage,       418 
Pontigny,  Abbot  of,  punished,  394 

Poor  Men  of  Lyons,  375 

Poor-law  of  Edward  VI.,  476 

Poor-law  required  in  Scotland  in  1562,   516 
Poppo  of  Brixen,  195 


Popular  desire   for  celibacy  in   5th 

century,  81 

in  11th  century,  246 

sympathy  for  married  priests  in 

1524,  416 

causes  of  opposition  to  celibacy,   419 
discontent  at  suppression  of  mo- 
nasteries in  England,  471 
dislike   to   clerical   marriage   in 
England,                                480,  489 
Porphyry,  41 
Portalis,  his  speech  on  the  Concordat,  555 
refuses  to  authorize  clerical  mar- 
riage,                                              556 
Portugal,  condition  of  church  in  14th 

century,  324 

military  orders  in,  368 

Poverty   not    required   of   primitive 

monks,  104,  114 

under  rule  of  Tetradius,  116 

under  rule  of  military  orders,  365 
of  the  Irish  church  in  1179,  312 

of  the  Scottish  church,  517 

of  the  Franciscans,  377 

Prague,  story  of  a  priest  of,  259 

council  of,  in  1420,  384 

in  1565,  529,  531 

clerical  marriage  in  1578,  530 

Prelates,  lenity  shown  to,  in  1060,        206 
Priests,  asceticism  of  Pagan,      24,  29,  66 
married  (see  Marriage) . 
reconciled,  under  Queen  Mary,     497 
sinful,  rejection  of  their  minis- 
trations— first  ordered  by 
Nicholas  II.,  203 

again  by  Hildebrand,  238 

and  by  Innocent  II.,  259 

reversed  by  Lucius  III.,  204 

ordered  by  council  of  London 

in  1102,  288 

conflicting  views  of  Anselm 

and  Paschal  II.,  289 

intensified  by  Wickliffe,  380 

and  by  Huss,  383 

Priesthood,  hereditary,  in  10th  cen- 
tury, 149,  157 
evils  of,  236 
universal  in  Normandy  in  12th 

century,  272 

in  Britanny,  273 

in  England  in  1102,  288 

allowed  by  Paschal  II.  in  1107,  290 
condemned  by  Lucius  II.  in  1 144,  295 
universal  in  England  and  Wales 

e'.  1200,  299 

forbidden   by  Cardinal  Otto,  in 

1237,  302 

universal  in  Ireland  in  11th  and 

12th  centuries,  310 

permitted  by  Clement  III.,  312 

in  Spain  in  11th  century,  318 

perpetuated  by  dispensing  power,  335 
deprecated  by  Celestin  III.,  339 

forbidden  by  Lateran  council  in 
1215,  340 


596 


INDEX 


Priesthood,  hereditary — 

allowed  in  Livonia  by  Innocent 

IV.,  349 

regulated  by  Alexander  III.  and 

by  Clement  VII.,  437 

provisions  of  council  of  Trent,      455 
of  Scottish  councils  in  1549 

and  1559,  512,  513 

of  Pius  V.  in  1571,  524 

of  synod  of  Augsburg  in  1610,  525 
Priestly  influence  over  testaments  for- 
bidden by  Valentinian,  64 
concubinage  a  protection  to  the 
laity,                               324,  355,  386 
Primitive  church,   clerical  marriage 

permitted  in,  27 

Privileges  conferred  on  celibacy,  181 

Procedure  against  unchaste  clerks  in 

9th  century,  143 

Procopius,  St.,  188 

Prodicus,  34 

Property,  church,  dilapidation  of,  by 

married  priests,  126 

in  10th  century,  150 

in  17th  century,  533 

Prota,Dr.,  urges  clerical  marriage,      562 

Protestantism  established  in  1555,        434 

Protestant  sisterhoods,  565 

Prussia,  West,  clergy  in  1497,  396 

Prussia,  founding  of  Dukedom  of,         425 

Pseudo-Clement,  decree  of,  27 

Pseudo-Gregory,  epistle  of,  140 

Pseudo-Sylvester,  decretal  of,  140 

Punishment  of  married  priests,  161 

by  Assembly  of  Ratisbon  in  1524   415 

by  Diet  of  Nurnberg  in  1524         417 

under  Act  of  Six  Articles      483,  486 

under  Queen  Mary  493-494 

Pythagoras,  asceticism  of,  24 


QUINISEXT  in  Trullo,  94 

Quedlinburg,  synod  of,  in  1085,    252 


RAINBALDO  of  Fiesole,  186 
Raoul  of  Poitiers,  his  denuncia- 
tions of  clerical  vices,  279 
Ratherius  of  Verona  endeavors  to  re- 
form his  clergy,  154 
is  ejected  in  consequence,  155 
Ratisbon,  Assembly  of,  in  1524,  415 
reformatory  edict  of,  in  1524,  421 
decree  of,  in  1532,  430 
Diet  of,  in  1541,  431 
Bishop   of,   his   opinion   of  the 
priesthood  in  1512,  421 
Ratramnus  of  Corvey,  53 
Ravenna,  council  of,  in  967,  154 
in  992,  162 
in  1568,  528 
Rebellion  against  Rome   threatened 

in  1510,  403 
Recared  I.  legislates  against  clerical 

marriage,                  •  124 


i  Reconciliation  of  imperialist  clergy 
in  1106,  258 

Reconciliation  of  England  to  Rome,  496 
j  Reconciled  priests  under  Queen  Mary,  497 
[  Reform  of  Frankish  clergy  by  the  Car- 

lovingians,  133 

'•  Reformation,  the,  in  Germany,     402-434 
in  England,  453-507 

in  Scotland,  508-521 

in  France,  541 

in  Italy,  crushed  by  papacy,  528 
Reformatory    efforts    of    council    of 

Trent,  455 

Reformers  hold  aloof  from  council  of 

Mantua  in  1536,  439 

and   from   council    of  Trent   in 

1542,  440 

forced  to  attend  council  of  Trent 

in  1551,  441 

Scottish,  temper  of  the,  517 

Refractaire  clergy  of  1790,  548 

Reggio,  troubles  in,  233 

Reginald  of  Canterbury,  his  life   of 

St.  Malchus,  289 

Regino   of  Pruhm,   his  collection  of 

canons,  142 

Regulations  necessitated  by  celibacy, 

in  400,  74 

Rejection   of  ministrations   of  sinful 

priests  ordered  by  Nicholas  II.,  203 
and  by  Hildebrand,  238 

and  by  Innocent  II.,  259 

reversed  by  Lucius  III.,  204 

ordered  by  council  of  London  in 

1102,     *  288 

conflicting  views  of  Anselm  and 

Paschal  II.,  289 

intensified  by  Wickliffe,  380 

and  by  Huss,  .  383 

Relatives,  residence  of,  forbidden  in 

9th  century,  141 

in  13th  century,  344 

in  16th  century,  531 

in  17th  century,  538-539 

concubines  kept  as,  535 

Rely,  Jean  de,  describes  the  Gallican 

church,  391 

Relics,  supposititious,  474 

Resistance  to  celibacy  overcome   in 

5th  century,  80 

Restoration,  Bourbon,  clerical  mar- 
riage under  the,  556 
Restrictions  on  monastic  vows  by  Ma- 

jorian,  108 

Restrictions  on  clerical  marriage  by 

Elizabeth,  502 

Reunion  of  the  churches,  efforts  at, 

in  1530,  427 

attempted    by    Ferdinand    and 
Maximilian  II.,  461 

Revolutionary  efforts  of  married  cler- 
gy in  1061,  208 
Revolution,  French,  of  1789,  546 
Rhea,  priests  of,  29 
Rheims,  council  of,  in  874,                     144 


INDEX. 


597 


Rheims,  council  of,  in  1049, 
in  1119, 
in  1131, 
in  1148, 
in  1583, 
in  1664, 
Rhodes,  Knights  of,  365, 

suppressed  in  England, 
Richard  the  Fearless  reforms  Abhey 

of  Fecamp, 
Richard,  Bishop  of  Dover, 
Richard  of  Marseilles  tries  to  reform 

the  Spanish  church, 
Richstich     Landrecht,     children     of 

clerks  in, 
Riculfus   of   Soissons,    his    constitu 

tions, 
Ridley  and  Cranmer  prepare  the  For- 
ty-two Articles, 
Rigobert  of  Rheims, 
Ritualists,  the,  491, 

Rivalry  between  church  and  heretics, 
Robert,  Archbishop  of  Rouen, 
Robert  the  Pious,  his  indifference, 
Robert  d' Arbrissel  tries  to  reform  the 

Norman  priesthood, 
Robert   the    Frisian    persecutes    the 

married  clergy, 
Robert  the  Hierosolymitan, 
Robert  Grosseteste,  his  reformatory 
zeal, 
his  opinion  of  the  papacy, 
Roderic  the  Goth  forbids  clerical  mar- 
riage, 
Rodolf  of  Bourges,  capitularies  of, 
Rodolf  of  Swabia  ejected  from  Mainz, 
Roman  empire,  demoralization  of, 

law  as  to  concubines, 
Rome,  synod  of,  in  384, 
in  721  and  732, 
in  826, 
in  1051, 
in  1059, 

in  1063,  205, 

in  1074, 
condition   of  discipline   in   11th 

century, 
immorality  of,  in  1570, 
clergy  of,  in  1853, 
Rouen,  council  of,  in  1072, 
in  1189, 
in  1148, 
in  1581, 
three  archbishops  of, 
Rule  of  St.  Oriesis, 
of  St.  Pachomius, 
of  John  Cassianius,  104, 

of  John  of  Jerusalem, 
of  St.  Benedict, 

made  binding  on  all  monks, 
additions  to  it  in  817, 
revived  in  11th  century, 
of  Tetradius, 
of  Columba, 
of  St.  Chrodegang, 


197  Rupert    of    Duits,    his    account    of 
281        priestly  immoralities,  260 

328  Ruremonde,  synod  of,  in  1570,  534 

329  Russian  imitators  of  Origen,  38 
538  Rusticus  of  Narbonne,  79 
537 

369 

475    OACCOFORI,  42 

O    Sachsenspiegel,  children  of  clerks 
160  recognized  in,  349 

473     Sacerdotal  marriage  (see  Marriage). 

Sacrament  of  sinful  priests  (see  Priests). 
318     Sacre-fJceur  de  Jesus,  Order  of,  567 

St.   Albans,   Abbey  of,   its   state   in     . 
349        1489,  392 

St.  Denis,  council  of,  in  995,  158 

141  Abbey  of,  reformed  by  Suger,       279 

St.  Fara,  Abbey  of,  its  immorality,      279 
490     St.  Gildas  de  Ruys,  Abbey  of,  its  dis- 
132        orders,  279 

564    St.  James  of  the  Sword,  Order  of,         367 
43     St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  Order  of,  365,  369 
160  suppressed  in  England,  475 

185    S.  Marco,  convent  of,  in  Florence, 

preserved,  563 

272  St.    Martin,    abbey   of,    women   not 

allowed  to  enter,  394 

273  St.  Mary  of  Argentueil,  abbey  of,  279 
275     St.  Michael,  order  of,  368 

St.  Omer,  synod  of,  in  1583,  539 

306  in  1640,  534 

357     S.  Severino,  council  of,  in  1597,  528 

Salerno,  council  of,  in  1596,  528 

125     Salvianus,  his  description  of  society,     85 

141    Salzburg,  council  of,  in  1569,        436,  529 

249  Archbishop  of,  tries  to  restrain 

85  clerical  marriage,  448 

204  corruption  of  priesthood  in  1567,  524 
106  in  1569,  529 
130            children  of  clergy  in  1616,  529 

205  Sanders,  his  description  of  Cranmer's 

198  married  life,  485 
203                    of  Anglican  clergy,          501,  506 
211     Sands,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  on  cleri- 
238                cal  marriage,  501 

Sannazaro,  epigrams  on  the  popes,       359 
187    Sannyasis,  Brahminical  devotees,  23 

525    Sarabaitae,  or  wandering  monks,  113 

560    Saragossa,  council  of,  in  381,  60,  103 

270  in  592,  '      85 

334    Savonarola,  his  attacks  on   clerical 
374  vices,  391,  393 

541  on  abuses  of  confessional,  535 

160  his  convent  of  S.  Marco,  563 

103    Saxon  church  in  England,  164-183 

103  bishops  dispossessed,  286 

114  Saxony,  secularization  of  monasteries 
105  !      in, 

115  Scheninsc,  council  of,  in  1248, 


134    Schmalcalden,  league  of, 

139  j  it  negotiates  with  Henry  VIII., 

190  I  Schmidt,  Conrad,  heresy  of, 

116     Scotland,  laws  of,  recognizing  concu- 

165  I  bines, 

138  !  asceticism  of  early  Culdees, 

88* 


426 

265 
429 

481 
384 

205 
164 


598 


INDEX 


Scotland — 

condition  of  medieval  church, 


313-315 
protest  against  dispensations  for 

children  of  priests,  438 

Reformation  in,  508-521 

Scribes,  ascetic  vows  of,  22 

Second    marriages    objected    to    by 

heretics,  35 

inadmissible  in  clerks,  36  . 

objectionable  in  laymen,  36 

commanded  by  St.  Paul.  101  | 

common  in  church  of  10th  cei^t.    151 
frequent  in  11th  century,  211 j 

not  allowed  in  Milan,  219  j 

Secular  character  of  Spanish  Church,  317  j 
interference  against  priestly  mar- 
riage, 81 
in  favor  of  married  priests, 

155,  156 
against  married  priests,  244,  270 
power  invoked  in  1524  to  repress 
marriage,  415 

Secularization  of  abbeys  in  Germany,  426  | 
in  England,  464 

in  Scotland,  517 

in  Italy,  563 

Segenfrid  of  Le  Mans,  157 

Separation  of  husband  and  wife  for- 
bidden, 31 
of   married    priests  from   their 
wives,                                             498 
Seraphin  of  Gran,  his  efforts  at  re- 
form,                                                     261 
Sergius  III.,  his  immorality,                 147 
Servilio  of  Mainz  dispossessed,              133 
Servitude  of  children  of  ecclesiastics,  184 
decreed  for  wives  of  clergy,   198,  256 
Severus  abrogates  law  of  Majorian,     109 
Seville,  first  council  of,  in  590,                85 
Sextus  Philosophus,                                    38 
Sicilian    Constitutions,    children    of 

clerks  recognized  by,  346 

Sickingen,     Franz     von,     advocates 

clerical  marriage,  413 

Siedeler,  Jacob,  punished  for  marry- 
ing in  1521,  411 
Siegfrid  of  Mainz,  his  troubles  with 

married  clergy,  242 

SieteTartidas,  apostolic  celibacy  de- 
nied in,  33 
clerical  marriage  forbidden  by,     323 
Sigismond,   Emp.,  urges  abrogation 

of  celibacy,  398 

Silesia,  clerical  marriage  in  1580,         530 
Simony  universal  in  11th  century,        ]92 
Simple  vow  does  not  dissolve   mar- 
riage, 334 
Simplicius  of  Autun,  81 
Siricius  deplores  monastic  license,         61 
his  decretal  of  385,  66 
recommends  celibacy  to  African 

church,  67 

condemns  the  Bonosiacs,  70 

Jovinian  in  390,  71 


Siricius,  his  decretals  not  observed  in 

the  East,  89 

imprisons  Unchaste  monks,  106 

Sisterhoods,  Protestant,  565 

Sisters  of  Charity  in  France,  567 

Sithieu,  abbey  of,  women  not  allowed 

to  enter,  394 

Sitten,  synod  of,  in  1500,  396 

Six  Articles,  act  of,  passed  in  1539,  483 
modified  in  1540,  486 

repealed  in  1547,  487 

revived  in  1553,  492 

Sixteenth  century,  intellectual  move- 
ment of,  402 
Sixtus  III.  decries  marriage,  45 
trial  of,  in  440,  87 
Sixtus  V.  tries  to  reform  the  Papal 

court,  526 

Skopsis,  38 

Sleswick,  morals  of  clergy  in  1494,      396 
Smaragdus     denounces     wandering 

monks,  119 

Societa  Emancipatrice  of  Naples,         562 
Socrates  relates  the  story  of  Paph- 

nutius,  55 

Soissons,  council  of,  in  744,  135 

Manicheism  at,  in  1114,  216 

Somerset,  the  Protector,  favors  the 

Reformation,  487 

Sormitz,  escape  of  nuns  from,  in  1523,  417 
Sozomen  relates  the  story  of  Paph- 

nutius,  55 

Spain,  commencement  of  celibacy  in,  47 
decretal  of  Siricius  addressed  to,  66 
heresy  of  Vigilantius  in,  75 

difficulty  in  enforcing  the  canons,  84 
disorders  of  the  monks  in,  119 

neglect  of  canons  in  6th  and  7th 

centuries,  124 

condition  of  medieval  church  in, 

316-325 

military  orders  in,  367 

Loyola  reforms  clerical  morals,     438 

.     abuse  of  confessional  in,  535 

Spalatro,  Archbishop  of,  deposed  for 

marriage,  196 

Spalatro,  council  of,  in  925,  152 

in  1049,  196 

in  1185,  263 

Speculum    Saxonicum,    children    of 

clerks  in,  349 

Spifame,  Bishop  of  Nevers,  married,  541 
Spiritualism  of  Christian  law,  21 

Spoliation  proposed    by  King   John 

and  Emp.  Otho,  297 

of  the  Norman  clergy,  271 

of  the  church  in  Scotland,  515 

Sraddha,  22 

Stephen  IX.,  200 

Stigma    on     clerical    marriage    by 

Elizabeth,  502 

Stokesley,  Bishop  of  London,  470 

Storck,  the  Anabaptist,  429 

Strasburg,  encouragement  of  married 

priests  in  1524,  416 


INDEX 


599 


Strasburg,  synod  of,  in  1549,  446 

in  1687,  534 

Sturmius,  Balthazar,  marries  in  1522,  413 
Sub -deacon  marrying  again  degraded,   74 
regulations  for,  214 

immoral,  allowed  to  marry,  333 

Subterfuges  of  married  priests  in  1102,  288 
Suidger  of  Bamberg,  191 

Sulpicius  Severus  favors  Vigilantius,     75 
Suppression  of  monasteries  in  Sax- 
ony, 426 
in  England,  464 
in  Scotland,  517 
by  Joseph  II.,  545 
in  France,                                           547 
in  Italy,  563 
Supremacy  of  the  church  assumed  by 

Henry  VIII. .  467 

Sweden,  delay  in  adopting  celibacy,     264 
considered  as  schismatic  in  con- 
sequence, 265 
Swithin,  St.,  his  infraction  of  canons,  170 
Switzerland,   organized    concubinage 

in,  355 

reform  inaugurated  there,  413 

Sylvester  I.,  False  decretal  of,  140 

Sylvester  II.,  disregard  of  celibacy,     162 
Sylvester  III.,  191 

Sympathy  for  married  priests  in  1524,  416 
Synesius  of  Ptolemais,  •  91 


TABOMTES,  the,  383 

Talasius  of  Angers,  84 

Talleyrand   proposes    suppression    of 

monasteries,  547 

Talmadge  on  Passaglia's  protest,  561 

Tanner,  Dr.,  his  estimate  of  ejected 

priests  in  1554,  495 

Tarragona,  council  of,  in  516,  85 

Tatianus,  34 

Tedaldo,  Archbishop  of  Milan,  230 

Temple,  Order  of  the,  365 

Temporal  interference  requested  with 

married  clergy,  212 

causes  of  opposition  to  celibacy 
in  16th  century,  419 

Terrassa,  council  of,  in  614,  85 

Tertullian,  his  opinions,        25,  28,  36,  40 
he  denies  the  perpetual  virginity 
of  the  Virgin,  70 

Test  of  patriotism,  priestly  marriage 

as  a,  550 

Testamentary  provisions  in  favor  of 

children.  347 

Tetradius,  Rule  of,  116 

Tetzel,  sale  of  indulgences  by,  405 

Teutonic  Knights,  369 

secularization  of,  425 

Thane-right  a  reward  for  chastity,        178 
Theatrical  performances  in  nunneries,  446 
Theodatus  of  Corvey  receives  bishop- 
ric of  Prague,  238 
Theodore  of  Canterbury  enforces  celi- 
bacy, 167 


Theodoric  of  Verdun  reproaches  Hil- 

debrand,  245 

Theodosius    the  Great  endeavors  to 

restrict  monachism,  111 

Theodulf  of  Orleans,  his  capitularies,   141 
Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  his  strict- 
ness, 284 
Theophylact,    his     commentary     on 

I.  Timothy,  '     37 

Thessalia,  compulsory  celibacy  intro- 
duced, 91 
Thessalonica,     compulsory     celibacy 

in,  91 

Thirty-nine  Articles,  the,  503 

Thomas  a  Becket,  his  attacks  on  si- 
mony, 298 
Thomas    Aquinas    denies    Apostolic 

origin  of  celibacy,  32 

on  vows  and  marriage,  334 

Thomas  of  Cantinpre,  354 

Timotheists,  the,  377 

Tithes,  hereditary,  in  10th  century,     150 

Toledo,  first  council  of,  in  398,       74,  107 

on  concubines,  205 

on  abuse  of  confessional,         535 

councils  of,  in  531,  597,  633,  and 

675,  85 

third  council  of,  in  589,  85,  124 

eighth  council  of,  in  653,         85,  124 
ninth  council  of,  in  655,  85,  125 

rule  of,  in  the  Spanish  church,      316 
Toleration  proclaimed  at  Ratisbon  in 

1532,  430 

in  kingdom  of  Italy,  560 

Tome,  Bishop  of  Bourges,  married 

in  1792,  549 

Toulouse,  Manicheans  of,  in  1018,        216 
council  of,  in  1056,  268 

in  1068,  318 

in  1119,  217,  282 

Tournay,  council  of,  in  1520,  536 

in  1574,  539 

Tours,  council  of,  in  460,  85 

in  567,  85,  123 

in  925,  150 

in  1060,  206,  268 

in  1096,  277 

in  1163,  332 

in  1583,  538 

Trani,  Bishop  of,  deposed  for  mar- 
riage, 205 
Transaction  of  Cadam,  in  1533,  431 
of  Passau,  in  1552,                           434 
Treguier,  church  of,  renews  constitu- 
tion of  Guala,  344 
Trent,  council  of,                              435-462 
received  throughout  Europe,         522 
disobedience  to,  529 
Treves,  synods  of,  in  1548  and  1549,    444 
in  1678,                                       534 
Archbishop  of,  tries  to  reform  his 
clergy  in  1548,                               444 
Tropea,  sister  of  Pier-Leone,  356 
Troyes,  council  of,  in  1128,  365 
in  1107,  258 


600 


INDEX 


Tudeschi,  Cardinal,  recommends  ab- 
rogation of  celibacy,  398 
Turin,  council  of,  in  401,  78 


ULRIC,  St.,  of  Augsburg,  153 

Ulric  of  Tegernsee  reproves  cleri- 
cal polygamy,  188 
Umiliati   broken  up   by  St.  Charles 

Borromeo,  527 

Urban  II.    on   sacraments  of  sinful 

priests,  203 

his  violent  measures,  255 

tries  to  protect  the  Flemish  clergy,  275 

Urbino,  council  of,  in  1569,  528 

Useria,  supposed  marriage  of  Eriberto 

of  Milan  with,  218 

Utrecht,  John  van  Arckel,  Bishop  of,   351 

Philip  of  Burgundy,  Bishop  of,     420 

councils  of,  in  1564  and  1565,        523 


VAGABOND  monks  described  by 
Augustine,  105 

by  St.  Benedict,  113 

by  St.  Isidor,  118 

by  Smaragdus,  119 

Vagabondage,   law   of  Henry  VIII. 

against,  471 

law  of  Edward  VI.  against,  476 

Valence,  council  of,  in  374,  61,  106 

Valens,  laws  of,  in  365  and  376,     59,  101 
Valentinian  I.,  law  of  370,  63,  64 

Valentinus,  34 

Valesians,  38 

Vallombrosa,  monks  of,  190 

Vanaprastha,  22 

Vaudois,  the,  374 

Venality  of  officials,     271,  292,  297,  307, 
340,  345,  389,  390,  395,  420,  422,  445 
Venantius  of  Syracuse,  117 

Venetia,  regulations  for,  in  1068,         214 
Verneuil,  synod  of,  in  755,  138 

Vestal  virgins,  24 

Vestments,   clerical,    used    to   adorn 
concubines    in   10th   cen- 
tury, 151 
in  17th  century,  533 
Vicenza,  council  of  Trent  transferred 

to,  440 

Victor  II.,  199 

his  opinion  of  clerical  morals,        187 

he  urges  celibacy  in  France,  268 

Vienna,  council  of,  in  1267,  264 

Vienne,  council  of,  in  1060,  206 

in  1311,  excom.  theFraticelli,  378 

Vigilantius,  73 

Villiers  de  l'Isle  Adam,  369 

Villiers,  his  Apologie  du  Celibat,  545 

Virgil,  Polydor,       •  287 

Virgin   Mary,  her  "  intemerata  vir- 

ginitas,"  70 

Virginity    the    corner-stone    of    the 

church,  46 


Virginity,  comparative  estimates   of, 

44,  45,  331,  361 
Virgins,   professed,    numbers    of,    in 

4th  century,  103 

Visconti,   nuncio,  letters  on  council 

of  Trent,  452 

Vision  of  Piers  Ploughman,  462 

Visitation  of  the  monasteries  in  1535,  467 
Vitalis  of    Mortain   tries   to   reform 

the  Norman  clergy,  272 

Vladislas  II.,  Diet  held  by,  in  1498,    395 

Vows  of  continence  not  perpetual,         39 

enforcement  of,  58 

not  irrevocable  in  early  church,    101 

gradually  become  binding,   106,  112, 

117 
not  required  of  monks  at  first,  104 
not  required  by  St.  Benedict,  115 
become     irrevocable     under 

Gregory  I.,  117 

required  before  ordination,  185 

of  nuns  a  marriage  with  Christ,    107 
monastic,  refused    to    clerks    in 

381,  103 

render  marriage  null,  328 

conflicting  legislation  concerning,  334 


WAKE,  Win.,  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury,   his    correspondence 
with  Du  Pin,  544 

Waldemar  II.,  laws  recognizing  con- 
cubines, 205 
Walden,  Abbot  of,  secretly  married,  479 
Waldenses,  the,  374 
Wales,  celibacy  observed  in  8th  cent.,  168 
priestly   marriage    universal    in 

13th  century,  299 

persistence  of,  308 

Walter  of  Orleans,  capitularies  of,        141 

Watten,  Priory  of,  persecution  of,         274 

Wavrans    Bishop  of   Ypres,    on   the 

confessional,  537 

Wealth  of  church    excessive   in  4th 

century,  64 

of  the  English  monasteries,  475 

Westminster,  council  of,  in  1127,  294 

in  1138,  295 

shortlived  bishopric  of,  476 

canons  of,   ejected  for  marrying 

in  1553,  494 

Weston,  Dr.,  his  zeal  at  funeral  of 

Edward  VI.,  492 

Wexford,  married  priests  of,  313 

Whitby,  synod  of,  in  664,  166 

Wicelius,  George,  argues  in  favor  of 

clerical  marriage,  459 

Wickliffe   carries   out   the  policy  of 

Nicholas  II.,  204 

his  heresies,  380 

Widows,  order  of,  in  early  church,  40,  100 

degraded  in  comparison  with 

virgins,  107 

of  ecclesiastics,  74 

Wilfreda,  St.,  172 


INDEX 


\ 

601 


302 
352 

270 

272 
285 
385 
351 

416 
173 

286 
286 

518 

126 

124 


William  of  Cantilupe,  Bishop  of  Wor- 
cester, 
William  of  Cologne  prohibits  marri- 
age of  monks, 
William  the  Conqueror  enforces  celi- 
bacy in  Normandy, 
but  neglects  it  in  Britanny, 
and  in  England, 
William  of  Hilderniss,  heresy  of, 
William,  Bishop  of  Paderborn, 
William  of  Strasburg  tries  to  excom- 
municate married  priests  in  1524, 
Winchester,  monastery  of,  reformed, 

councils  of,  in  1070  and  1076, 
Windsor,  council  of,  in  1070, 
Wishart,   George,   martyrdom  of,  in 

1545, 
Wisigothic    laws    to   protect    church 
property, 
against  clerical  marriage, 
Witiza  of  Spain   authorizes  clerical 

marriage,  *  125 

Wittenberg,  synod  of,  in  1521,  412 

Wives,  adulterous,  of  ecclesiastics,  49,  74 
of  Huguenot  pastors,  540 

Wives  of  clergy,  their  residence  au- 
thorized in  420,  54 
they  are  declared  slaves,  198,  256 
stigmatized  as  concubines,      204 
permitted  to  live  with  their 

husbands,  128,  207 

urged  to  quit  their  husbands,  211 

their  sufferings,  247 

of  Anglican  clergy  assumed  to  be 

domestics, 

their  degradation, 

Wolfgang  of  Ratisbon,  his  efforts  at 

reform, 
Wolf  hunting  prescribed  for  Spanish 

clergy, 
Wolsey,  Cardinal,  endeavors  to  re- 
form his  clergy, 
commences    the    suppression    of 
monasteries,  464 


502 
505 


156 


317 


464 


Wolsey,  Cardinal — 

his  fall,  466 

Women    not    denied    admittance   in 

early  monasteries,  104 

carefully    excluded    subsequent- 
ly, 391,  392 
Wood,  T. ,  his  complaint  as  to  position 

of  clergy,  506 

Worcester,  abbey  of  St.  Mary  of,  re- 
formed, 174 
Worms,  Diet  of,  in  1076,  246 
Wurzburg,  council  of,  in  1446,  379 
in  1548,  446 
Wurzburg,     Bishop     of,     suppresses 

John  of  Niklaushausen,  397 

Wurzburg,  clerical  marriage  in  1584,  530 


XIMENES    reforms    the    Spanish 
Franciscans,  392 


YATIS,  or  Brahminical  devotees  23 

York,  council  of,  in  1195,  301 

attempt  at  reform  by  Wolsey,  464 

Ypres,  synod  of,  in  1629,  534 

abuse  of  absolution  in  1768,  537 
Yves  of  Chartres  (see  Ivo). 


ZABOLCS,  synod  of,  in  1092,  261 

Zaccaria,  his  works  in  defence 
of  celibacy,  545-546 

Zachary,  Pope,  urges  reformation  of 

Frankish  clergy,  134 

exhorts  the  Anglican  church,         169 
Zurich,   clergy  of.   refuse   to  be   re- 
formed, 352 
i  Zwilling,    Gabriel,    preaches    against 

monachism  in  1521,  413 

|  Zwingli  (Ulric)  demands  clerical  mar- 
riage, 413 


• 


HS     aRoC^AT'°N  DEPARTMENT 


JOmm+       20?  Mni£likr<7" 
LOAN  PbRIOD  ]    |2  " 
HOME  USE 


AIL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 


-  rep  oh?ff,AS^*g|PBapw 


j= 


AOTODiscsEPorgo 


JJEP2  1  2UUU 


=±=- 


,«»"n°-"».  60m,  -/T3,VERS,b7SvAL^S0berkeley 


®$ 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDEETblBaD 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


